Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Marriages Provisional Order Bill.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

South Staffordshire Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1918, relating to an area in the parishes of Appleton Roebuck, Copmanthorpe, Acaster Malbis, Acaster Selby, Bolton Percy, Colton, and Bishopsthorpe in the West Riding of Yorkshire," presented by Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAAVEN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to present an humble petition from the Trustees of the British Museum, humbly praying this Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the trusts reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of
learning and useful knowledge as this House shall deem fit—[King's Recommendation, signified]—Referred to the Committee of Supply.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Accounts ordered, relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1922.—[Mr Baldwin.]

FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Accounts ordered, relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions during the year 1922.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NAVAL PENSIONS.

Mr. BELL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to reduce the present naval pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): As it is understood that the hon. Member refers to ordinary naval service pensions for men, I have been asked to reply. There is no intention on the part of the Admiralty to reduce the long service pensions of any men now in receipt of a pension, or of men now in the naval service who may hereafter qualify for a service pension. The question of fixing a lower rate of pension for men entering the Navy in future is now under the consideration of the Admiralty.

DIAGNOSIS (REVISION).

Mr. INSKIP: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the large number of cases which, having been classed in the first instance as attributable, were after re-examination at a much later day classed as only aggravated and finally as neither attributable, nor aggravated in spite of the continuance of
incapacity; whether he is aware of the feelings aroused by the occurrence of such cases; and whether he can explain the apparent change of policy or the adoption of new standards by the Pensions Ministry or the final appeal tribunal which has resulted in such reversals of the earlier and more reliable diagnosis?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): It is clearly my duty to secure that entitlement to pension has been properly conceded, and review with that object is specially necessary in connection with the very large number of claims which, owing to the heavy pressure of work consequent on demobilisation, were admitted on the report of a single medical officer. When subsequent examination by a properly constituted Medical Board, followed by full and expert consideration of all the relevant circumstances, reveals an incorrect decision on entitlement, I should not be justified in neglecting to make the necessary correction. In all such cases the man is informed of the alteration and advised of his right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of these cases has now become very large, and that very great dissatisfaction is being expressed in a great number of cases as to the sudden existence of these medical revisions by medical gentlemen who were unaware of the original facts?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that, but this cuts both ways. Very often a man, at the beginning of his demobilisation, was not considered to be entitled to a pension, but since then he has gone to the Appeal Tribunal and got his pension.

Mr. INSKIP: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a very long list of cases from the Bristol War Pensions Committee in which complaint is made that a single referee, who was unaware of the original diagnosis, has revised attributable or aggravated cases so that the man's pension has been cut down to a small figure or to nothing?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, but the man always has the right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, which is an entirely independent body instituted at the express wish of this House, and when
there is any doubt in any case I always advise the man to appeal.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I presume that on the Appeal Tribunal there are never less than three persons sitting?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir. In the case of a man there are a doctor, a lawyer and an ex-service man; in the case of an officer there are a doctor, a lawyer and an officer.

PARENTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. INSKIP: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the changes recently announced affecting pensions to parents after 31st March next are dictated by the need for economy or are consequent upon a decision that the relevant provisions of the Royal Warrant of I6th December, 1919, are more favourable than is just to parents; and, if so, whether he can state the grounds for such a decision and the justification for drawing a distinction between claims made before and claims made after 31st March?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to this question is a very long one, giving a full explanation, and, with the permission of the House, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer supplied:

I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has given me an opportunity of explaining to the House the meaning of the announcement recently made by me regarding parents' pensions.

There are, in the present Royal Warrant, three classes of pension which may be claimed by parents. The first class of pension is awarded solely on the ground that the deceased son contributed to the household expenses of his parents before enlistment; the second gives a pension to a parent solely on the ground that the son was under 26 years of age when he enlisted and was unmarried; and under the third class, a pension may be awarded if the parent is in pecuniary need and incapable of self-support. At the present time, a parent may claim, and he awarded, pension on any one of these three grounds.

The decision recently announced does not affect the title of any parent to claim and be awarded a pension if the claimant can show that his or her circumstances justify the grant of a pension. All it does
is to withdraw the right after the 31st March to claim a pension solely on one or other of the first two grounds named. The decision to put a time limit to all fresh applications to the first two classes of pension was based strictly on the merits of the case and on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee of this House on Pensions in 1919. That Committee recommend that all three classes of parents' pensions should be assimilated on the basis of need, broadly interpreted as the amount of support which the deceased son would have given to the parent had he survived.

In adopting this recommendation, I made it clear that, in my opinion, awards of the first two classes of pension referred to, which have already been made, could not, without breach of faith, be reviewed and cancelled simply because the recipients were not pecuniarily in need of them, and the Government agreed with me. At the same time, it was decided to put a time limit to fresh grants of pension based on either of the first two grounds mentioned where no pecuniary need was shown. The time limit for fresh applications for the first two classes of pension was fixed so as to allow of any claimant, who considered that he or she had a just claim to be considered for either of these classes of pension, to make such claim, and full publicity has been given to the announcement.

WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. G. G. WOOD).

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the ease of Mrs. G. G. Wood, widow of the late Private W. F. Wood, No. 27621, Royal Army Medical Corps, of 3, Cotlands Road, Bournemouth, whose husband died of disease contracted on service during the War one day after the seven years' limit under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant; whether Mrs. Wood will only receive]6s. 6d. per week pension instead of the full alternative pension for a widow with allowance for her child, to which she would have been entitled had her husband died one day earlier; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he can see his way to recommend an alteration in the terms of the Royal Warrant so as to extend the limit of time under Article 11?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am inquiring into the facts of this case, and will give it personal consideration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I must deal with the whole question; I cannot answer it straight off.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the situation, as it presents itself to many of these men, is that it would be better, in the interests of their wives and children, that they should die before the expiration of the seven years' limit rather than attempt to prolong their own lives?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This is a very large and difficult question, and I should hesitate to give an answer on the spur of the moment.

ORTHOPÆDIC HOSPITAL, SHEPHERD'S BUSH.

Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the hardship which the contemplated removal of the Shepherd's Bush Hospital to other quarters would entail on out-patients attending the hospital; what action he proposes to take to assist such cases; and whether the saving which it is anticipated would be the result of the change would be almost entirely wiped out by the cost of removal and allowances to out-patients?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In selecting alternative accommodation for out-patient treatment, full regard is being paid to the convenience of the pensioners, and I do not anticipate my difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements. The estimated cost of the removal from Shepherd's Bush, which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend last Thursday, includes the cost of providing suitable out-patient accommodation.

Major COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the remarkable efficiency of the electrical appliances, and is it intended to scrap all of them or remove them?

Mr. MACPHERSON: All these appliances will be removed.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it the fact that, as stated in the Press, the treatment of out-patients cannot proceed so satisfactorily as at present if the hospital is removed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: My medical advisers tell me that it can.

Sir H. FOREMAN: In view of the strong feeling that exists with reference to this hospital, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to reconsider this matter should he receive a more moderate demand from the Guardians?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir, the desire of the Ministry has always been to maintain this hospital, and even now I am prepared to consider a modified proposal from the Guardians. It must, however, be made at once; I cannot keep the fate of these men hanging in the balance.

Viscount CURZON: Is it the fact that the action taken by the Guardians necessitates the removal of this hospital?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir, without a doubt; it is a question of rent. I pressed them very hard, and have been negotiating with them for a long time, and I know the value of the hospital. In my judgment it is one of the great assets of the Ministry of Pensions, and I am anxious to keep it, but I refuse to be blackmailed. They are asking a rent which I think is wholly unjustifiable.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LIP-READING LESSONS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the decision to reduce the number of lip-reading lessons, given to ex-service men suffering from deafness, to 25, and in view of the fact that it has been stated that such a reduction would almost wholly destroy the value of such training and inflict great hardship on the men afflicted with deafness, and that the saving involved will be almost negligible, he will reconsider this decision?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Careful consideration has recently been given to this matter in the light of the Ministry's experience, and it is the definite opinion of my advisers that proficiency in lip-reading, after a course
of, say, 25 lessons under a skilled tutor, depends entirely upon regular practice, and is in no way furthered by additional tuition. It has been ascertained that proper tuition can be given under local authorities by lessons in the pensioner's spare time, and steps have, therefore, been taken to give effect to that system of instruction. While no loss of efficiency or hardship to the pensioner will be occasioned by this change, I have every reason to believe that a saving of public funds will be effected.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local opinion is directly contrary to the opinion that he has just expressed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that there are one or two people who take the other view.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is that great hardship will be inflicted on these people?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am advised that that is not so.

AIR MINISTRY.

Mr. RAPER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air why the applications of two ex-service clerks, Messrs. Colley and Cooper, under Clauses 37–39 of the Lytton Report, have not been forwarded to the Civil Service Commissioners; whether the chiefs of both these men have stated emphatically that they consider the clerks specially competent; whether both these chiefs have also written to the Committee which investigated these appeals and protested that their evidence was absolutely misrepresented; and what action he proposes to take on the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): I have devoted a good deal of personal attention to the cases of these two clerks, and am perfectly satisfied that the Committee referred to in the question conducted the proceedings with complete impartiality and carefulness. It is the fact, however, that the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee as to competence, have subsequently represented that their views were misunderstood, and, although I could not re-open the question of recommendations as a whole, I have felt justified in having
these two names forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for consideration with the others already forwarded.

Mr. RAPER: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his promise to have these two cases reconsidered, is it not a fact that his reply shows that there has been a very serious misrepresentation of evidence and is he willing to have the whole matter reconsidered?

Captain GUEST: No, that is quite impossible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is considering the reduction in pay of the temporary medical staff, which works out at £972 per head, in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Committee on National Expenditure that not more than 25 per cent. of the places available in secondary schools annually shall be reserved for free-place pupils from the elementary schools; whether he is aware that it is largely by means of the free-place system that the future entrants to the public teaching profession are educated, and that for the 10 years from 1909 to 1919 there was a grave shortage teachers; and whether he has considered the effects of the Committee's recommendation in diminishing the supply of teachers in the future?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, to transfer the functions of the Transport Ministry to the Board of Trade; and, if so, when will it be presented?

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 42.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee?

Mr. FORREST: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for neglecting no opportunity of increasing our trade, he will most carefully investigate the business brought to this country by the Department of Overseas Trade before he recommends its virtual extinction as suggested by the Geddes Committee?

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Committee on National Expenditure has disregarded existing legislation in order to propose reductions on expenditure; whether he is aware that the Committee regard certain parts of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, as inapplicable or inoperative; and whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the attitude of the Government with regard to the proposals of the Committee on National Expenditure regarding the Mines Department?

Colonel BURN: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government will, at an early date, introduce a Bill for the abolition of the Ministry of Transport and the transfer of its functions to the Board of Trade?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I would ask hon. Members to await the statement I intend to make next week with reference to the intentions of the Government regarding the recommendations made by the Committee on National Expenditure.

Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the whole of the recommendations made in the Report, or with the specific ones mentioned in the Questions?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not say that I shall deal with every specific thing. If I did so my speech would be interminable. There will be opportunity for hon. Members to raise such questions in the Debate.

DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDA.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what Departments have sent in memoranda to the Cabinet in reply to the Geddes Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. It would be quite contrary to established practice to give any account of Cabinet Papers.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it fair that before the Debate on the Geddes Report takes place we should have the replies made by the Departments, in view of the fact that the Admiralty reply has already been made public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The hon. Member is incorrect in supposing that the Paper published by the Admiralty was a Cabinet Paper. I have already said that it was not a Paper submitted to the Cabinet before publication. It would make Cabinet government impossible if all Papers submitted to the Cabinet for confidential information and guidance were called for by this House.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the publication of the Admiralty report was a gross breach of discipline?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I have already said that it was not.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Mr. BRIANT: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are demobilised are eligible for the unemployment grant?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. Regular members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were excluded from the Insurance Act by Section 40. Members of the temporary forces auxiliary to the Royal Irish Constabulary are insurable in respect of their service in that force. I understand that on demobilisation these men received, or are in course of receiving, payment in respect of their service. The question whether benefit is payable whilst they are in receipt of this payment has been referred to the Umpire for decision.

Mr. BRIANT: Are men who joined up for 12 months eligible for unemployment pay?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. HOGGE: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary what is the present position of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the South of Ireland?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir H. Greenwood): There are at present in Southern Ireland 233 officers and 5,764 other ranks belonging to the permanent establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Arrangements are well forward for the disbandment of these men, who constitute the Irish enlisted members of this force. All. British recruits to the force have left or are in course of leaving Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the British Government still responsible for the pay and discipline of these men, or the Provisional Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The British Government is responsible.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 30.
asked the Prime Minister what are the amounts at present standing to the credit of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund and the Queen's Jubilee Fund, and how and in whose names are the funds invested; and whether, in view of the approaching disbandment of the Irish police force, the Government will take immediate steps for the winding-up of those funds and the distribution amongst the parties entitled?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on the 20th instant, when I suggested that he should put down a question to be answered, say, in a fortnight's time. If he will give me the notice for which I asked I hope to be in a position to give him a full and satisfactory reply.

AUXILIARY CADET (MR. J. C. J. T00MER).

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary if he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. C. J. Towner, at present at Dr. Steeven's Hospital, Dublin; whether he is aware that this auxiliary cadet was sent to hospital suffering from the effect of severe chill and lumbago on the 1st October; that from the 11th December his pay was stopped, and, in addition, since the 13th January, a sum of 7s. a day has been charged against him as hospital fees; that his separation allowance has also been stopped; that, although having a wife and family, he is entitled to exemption from Income Tax, the sum of £19 10s. has been deducted from his pay for the same, and that in all, including the deduction
for Income Tax and hospital fees, a sum of £64 17s. has been deducted from his arrears; that this man was demobilised whilst ill in hospital; that he alleges that the board of investigation found that his illness was due to service and comes under the Royal Irish Constabulary code, injuries received on duty; and what steps he proposes to take to adjust this matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing this case to my notice, and am having immediate inquiry made.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE (CONSTABLE HOLORAN).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary if it is now possible in the case of Constable John Holohan, Dublin Metropolitan Police, to add for pension his war service and previous police service; and, if the order assimilating the practice in reference to Irish police to that regulating war services of English police has not yet been promulgated, will he have it arranged that this shall be done at an early date?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The new pensions Order, which I hope will be promulgated at a very early date, contains provision for counting discontinuous service in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as in the British police forces. Tinder these provisions Constable Holohan would, therefore, be able to count his previous police service for pension purposes. As regards the counting of war service, the position is as described in reply to the hon. Member's question on 21st April last. In this respect there is no dissimilarity between the treatment of the Irish police and those in this country.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will he be allowed to count his three years in the Navy for pension, and how soon does the right hon. Baronet expect to promulgate that Order?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first supplementary is "No." The second supplementary depends on our coming to an agreement with the representative bodies concerned.

AUXILIARY, CADETS (TRADESMEN'S ACCOUNTS).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that G Company
of the Auxiliaries, on arriving at Killaloe in November, 1920, opened accounts with the local shopkeepers for the supply of their mess and canteen; that, upon removal to Corofin in July, 1921, the company left a large sum unpaid; that, as a result of various efforts to obtain payment, Colonel Guard, second in command of Auxiliary Divisions, on he evening of 2nd January, 1922, having previously interviewed the debtors, made an offer of part payment, giving the shopkeepers until the following morning to make a decision as to whether they would accept the sums offered in full discharge of the money due to them, informing them that unless they did so they would not be paid any portion of the debts due to them; and that the receipts given were, it is alleged, obtained under duress and in the absence of any legal assistance; and whether it is intended that losses amounting to a large sum are, in the circumstances, to be inflicted upon people who in all good faith parted with their property in the belief that they would be paid in full for the same.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that receipts in full settlement of outstanding accounts of this company were given by the tradesmen concerned but that claims for further payments have now been preferred by them. I am looking into the whole matter.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the Divisional Commander who investigated this said that Colonel Guard procured the receipts under duress, and, further, that claims, which were on all fours with this in Limerick, were paid in full, and why should these unfortunate shopkeepers in Killaloe be treated differently?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot accept the ex parte statement of the hon. Member, who of course, speaks on information supplied to him. I have said I am making inquiry into the matter, and no one is more anxious than I am that every policeman who leaves Ireland will leave with a clean record behind him.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does the right hon. Baronet hope to be able to make that inquiry and come to a conclusion soon?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The inquiry is going on now.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (AWARDS).

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to make any announcement relative to the settlement of decrees for damages arising out of the rebellion in Ireland, and particularly in respect of those decrees which relate to damage committed by the armed forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to answer this question. As regards personal injury, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As regards damage to property, as was stated in the course of the Debate yesterday, a full statement on this subject will be made, if possible, to-morrow by the Colonial Secretary.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Baronet, before he makes his statement as to damage by the armed forces of the Crown, publish the Strickland Report?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that unless some advance is made against the claim in this case it is only a matter of days at most, possibly hours, before this industry closes down, and is he further aware that 5,000 farmers are dependent on this industry for the absorption of their products, and can he do something to facilitate an advance?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will it not still further prejudice the prospects of a settlement in Ireland if widespread unemployment is caused by failure to pay compensation which everyone admits is only a matter of justice?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I agree, therefore I hope it will be possible for a statement to be made to-morrow dealing with the whole question.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Baronet make the statement himself?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The statement will be made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that there are civil servants in Ireland who are desirous of being transferred to the Civil
Service of Great Britain while there are civil servants in the British service who are desirous of taking service with the Government of the Irish Free State when set up; and will he take steps in such cases to arrange for a transfer of such civil servants from one Government to the other?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Every effort is being made to effect exchanges between officers desirous of transferring to and from Ireland, but, as I explained in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham on the 14th inst., such transfers present considerable difficulties.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information with regard to the number of unemployed in that part of Ireland outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish Parliament; are any of these unemployed in receipt of unemployment benefit from funds provided by the British taxpayer; and, if so, can he give an estimate of the weekly cost entailed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply. On 14th February the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed in Ireland in the area outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish Parliament was 54,025, of whom 44,257 were claiming unemployment benefit; in addition 1,132 persons were claiming benefit in respect of systematic short time. Grants under the Dependants' Grants Act were being claimed in addition to benefit where the necessary conditions were satisfied. The weekly amount of benefit paid is about £30,000 and that of grants £4,000.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is that still continuing?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

Mr. STEWART: Is it possible under the Regulations for a man to draw the unemployment dole while serving in the Irish Republican Army?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine the hon. Member is referring to unemployment benefit. I do not recognise the word dole. If a man is unemployed and is qualified for benefit he should receive it.

Mr. STEWART: What about employment in the Irish Republican Army?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that down.

NORTHERN GOVERNMENT (MUNITIONS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary what arms, ammunition, accoutrements, artillery, and motor vehicles have been handed over to the Northern Government of Ireland; what is the value of the goods handed over; how much money has been paid for them; and what arrangements have been made for collecting moneys awed for goods by the Northern Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): On their assuming full responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the six Northern Counties on the 21st November last, the Northern Government took over the whole of the Special Constabulary, with their arms and equipment. The whole of the regular constabulary stationed in the six counties with their arms and equipment were placed at the disposal of the Northern Government from that date, but, for matters of internal administration, remained under the control of the Chief of Police. No arrangement has yet been made for payment for these supplies, the value of which has not been determined. I do not think it is in the public interest to give in detail the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is the right hon. Gentleman ready to give information about munitions and arms handed over to the Southern Government, and why is it not in the public interest to indicate the same figures with regard to the Northern Government? As there is a considerable sum of money involved apparently, might I ask for this information? May we have the amount of money, if not the number of weapons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I am not prepared to give it at the present time. I think the reading out of a long list of details on this subject is calculated to be unduly alarming, and to give a disquieting impression. On the other hand, I do not think it is fair for the six Northern Counties, in the position in which they stand, that their exact position should be made known.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is the sum of money—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should put a question down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the position of the most important industrial undertaking in the South of Ireland, which is about to close its factories for lack of funds, notwithstanding claims against the British Government for upwards of £350,000, the greater part of which claim is already admitted, and the balance is subject only to checking; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent the collapse of this business in consequence of it being impossible to finance seasonal requirements until moneys due by the Government are paid, owing to existing bank overdraft incurred largely on account of damages in respect of which the greater portion of the above claim is admitted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The company referred to has been awarded compensation in respect of malicious injuries to buildings and plant amounting to £180,000. I understand that in addition the company has claimed the refund of a considerable sum in respect of Excess Profits Duty, as regards which I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In reply to the last part of the question, I can only say that I am in close touch with the company, and I trust that the hon. Member's forebodings will prove to be unjustified. I have done and am doing all in my power to expedite this matter. A full statement on the general question of the payment of claims of this character will, I hope, be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to-morrow, if possible.

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of this most important industry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it would be fair to disclose its name.

FREE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the
Government, as set out in the Schedule to the Treaty Agreement Bill, that the relations between this country and the Irish Free State and the constitution and powers of the Free State shall be modelled on those of the Dominion Government of Canada as laid down in the Canada Act, 1867; and, if so, will provisions appear in the constitution recognising His Majesty as Commander-in-Chief of the Free State Military, Naval, and Air Forces, and providing for the enactments of the Government being printed in Erse and English, and Debates in the Houses of Legislature being carried on in either language?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question I can only refer the hon. Member to Article 2 of the Treaty, which appears to me to be free from ambiguity. In reply to the second part, the form of the constitution is at present under consideration: the proper time to discuss its terms will be when it has been published and is brought before the House.

Colonel NEWMAN: Why was Article 2 put in the Treaty; and why was Canada mentioned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was mentioned because the Free State Constitution, in all respects in which Article 2 applies, will be governed by the same considerations as those which rule in regard to the Dominion of Canada.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the King be Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not propose to add anything to the very clear account which I gave to the House. The House will see all these matters when the Constitution has been prepared.

Sir J. BUTCHER: When the Constitution is prepared, will this House be entitled to modify it? May I have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise from the question which appears on the Paper.

FREE STATE DEBT (GUARANTEE).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is the generally accepted view that this country stands behind the Dominions as in a measure guaranteeing Dominion
debts; and if our liability for the future debts or borrowings of the Irish Free State will follow a similar line or will be made clear and authoritative if a different view is held by the Government?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore does not arise.

CATTLE EMBARGO INQUIRY.

Major M. WOOD: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Treasury sanction was given to the expenditure of money by the Irish Department of Agriculture in opposing the removal of the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle before the Commission which investigated that question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to answer this question. The answer is in the negative. As I explained yesterday in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member, the expenditure involved will not be defrayed from voted monies. No question of Treasury sanction therefore arises.

Major WOOD: Is it usual for the Irish Office to spend money without Treasury sanction?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does not the Department of Agriculture in Ireland exist for the defence of Irish agricultural interests?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so, and it defends those interests very actively.

FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.

Colonel NEWMAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the decision reached by Ard Fheis in Dublin yesterday, it is the intention of the Government to ask this House to proceed with the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?

Major C. LOWTHER: (by Private Notice)
asked whether the attention of the Colonial Secretary has been drawn to an agreement concluded between the different parties in the Irish Free State to postpone indefinitely the holding of an election; what effect this decision will have on the policy of His Majesty's Government; and whether he will consider postponing the further considera-
tion of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have not sufficient information regarding what took place in Dublin yesterday to enable us to form a judgment as to the course which should be pursued. We have invited Irish Ministers and signatories of the Treaty to come to London for an early conference on the whole situation.

Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of the House, whether he is prepared, now to modify his anticipatory programme of last Thursday as to the course of events during the next few months?

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it the intention of the Government to ask the House to proceed with the Irish Bill on Monday?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), of course, I made it plain that the programme and time table which I gave were subject to variation, at any rate, in their intermediate stages. As far as the question of business, asked by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. (Colonel Newman), is concerned, that will be dealt with in due course by the Leader of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of this hiatus that is likely to be created, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now continue the policy of withdrawing all protection from Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had better take some opportunity of making a statement on the subject.

CLONES INQUIRY.

Earl WINTERTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the Clones inquiry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to be able to inform the House that, with the concurrence of the Provisional Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, Mr. Justice McCardie has been selected to conduct this inquiry and has agreed to give his services. It is hoped that the necessary arrangements will be made in time to enable the inquiry to begin early next week.

WASHINGTON CONFERENCE.

Mr. L. MALONE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when the Four-Power Treaty, the Nine-Power Treaty, the Chinese Customs Treaty, and the other Treaties and formal resolutions and declarations which embody the results of the Washington Conference are to be submitted to Parliament; whether the Report of the British delegation will also be laid before the House as soon as possible; and whether the House will be given any opportunity of discussing the Treaties and the Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As soon as certified copies of the Treaties have been received, steps will be taken to lay them and other relevant agreements on the Table of the House. The publication of any further documents will be considered on their receipt from the Secretariat-General. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that it will he possible to allocate a special day for such a discussion, which could be taken, if the House desires, on the Estimates.

Mr. DOYLE: 57.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is proposed to publish a verbatim Report or a rescript of the proceedings at the International Congress at Washington; and whether, failing a verbatim Report, it will be possible to give the speeches of the British delegates on the leading questions in full?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): The verbatim Reports of the proceedings of the International Congress at. Washington are of such a length as to make the cost of publishing them prohibitive, but as soon as they are received from Washington, I will, with Mr. Speaker's permission, arrange for some copies to be placed in the library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

STORES ACCOUNTANCY.

Mr. RAPER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether all officers appointed to do a stores accountancy course at Ruislip have had previous experience of accountancy; if so, whether preference has been given to former officers of the Royal Air Force who are
incapacitated from flying; and whether any officers of the Navy or Army with no previous knowledge of either accountancy or flying have been brought into this branch of the Royal Air Force and given commissions as pilot officers or flying officers?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is that, with two exceptions, all the officers concerned had had previous accounting experience (the exceptions being two promising Royal Air Force cadets who were incapacitated from flying); to the second, that applications from former Royal Air Force officers received preferential consideration; to the third, that every officer appointed had either accountancy or flying experience.

TOURING CARS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to surrender the 164 touring cars, surplus to establishment, as recommended by the Geddes Committee?

Captain GUEST: Thirty-two of these touring cars have already been surrendered, and it is anticipated that a further 84 will be thrown up for disposal before the 1st April next. The question of the remaining 48 cars is under examination.

FRANCE AND RUSSIA.

Mr. L. MALONE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has seen the reports of the pourparlers which are taking place between France and the representatives of Soviet Russia; and whether he has information of the effect that they are directed towards or have already resulted in a separate agreement such as that made between France and Turkey at Angora?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have seen the reports referred to, but I have no information of the character suggested

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution, unanimously adopted by the Executive Council of the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce in London, urging that, in view of the far-reaching scheme of economic co-operation unanimously agreed upon at the Imperial Conferences of 1917 and 1918, an Imperial Economic Conference should be summoned at an early date, in which the appropriate British and Overseas Ministers would take part, in order to work out this agreement in further detail and take means to execute it for the complementary development of the resources of the two countries and of the whole Empire on lines of mutual helpfulness; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to summon such a conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the resolution referred to, but unless there is a general desire on the part of the Overseas Governments to hold a conference on the lines suggested, I do not think that there would be any advantage in His Majesty's Government taking action at the present time. So far as I am aware, there is no indication of any such desire.

Mr. HURD: Would it not be possible to sound the Dominion Government to see whether there is a desire for such a conference being held?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

GENOA CONFERENCE.

Captain BENN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the agenda of the Genoa Conference; and whether he will state for what reason it was decided not to ask the League of Nations to convene this Conference, in view of the fact that both America and Germany sent representatives to the Brussels Conference which was convened by the League?

Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it is usual to ask people to arrange for their own funerals?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of public business I cannot undertake to provide a special opportunity for such a discussion. As to the second part of the question, I have already given at length the reasons which actuated the Supreme Council in their decision.

Captain BENN: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an opportunity on the Supplementary Estimates of the Foreign Office for discussing the whole of the Genoa Conference policy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter On which I can give a ruling, nor can the Minister reply. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Captain BENN: Can the Prime Minister say whether a discussion relative to the merits of the Conference will take place before the Genoa Conference meets?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Prime Minister recollect that before the Washington Conference took place a very useful discussion took place in this House, and cannot time be found for this vital discussion before the Genoa Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Speaker has very pertinently reminded me that it is not for me to express an opinion as to the opportunity for the Debate. I believe that discussions of this character are best taken on the Vote on Account, but as to that the authorities of the House would have to answer and not the Minister.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the first Vote on Account is ear-marked for a discussion on the Unemployment, Ministry of Health Bill.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Prime Minister seriously and favourably consider the advisability of helping the starving millions of Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the Noble Lord will be good enough to postpone that question. I wish he would not press me at the present time.

Mr. L. MALONE: 38.
asked the Prime Minister when and where the conference of experts, preliminary to Genoa, will meet; and who are the British experts?

The PRIME MINISTER: There will no doubt be interchange of ideas from time to time between the officials concerned, and it is hoped to have a meeting with French and other experts shortly. An international agenda committee wilt meet shortly before the Conference. At present the material for the Conference is being examined by officials of the De-
partments concerned, and representatives of business interests are being, and will be, consulted. I hope to discuss the whole question with the French President of the Council Saturday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

BULGARIA.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of carrying out the promise to Bulgaria contained in the treaties of Sevres and Neuilly of an economic outlet on the Ægean will be among the subjects discussed at the forthcoming Conference to be attended by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Paris?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The question is quite independent of the proposed reconsideration of the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, and therefore does not call for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of Foreign Ministers at Paris.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the delay in dealing with this matter does not mean that it will be lost sight of, or that there will be any change in the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think my hon. Friend will be safe in assuming that.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LAMBERT: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £29,500,000 paid by Germany in respect of the cost of the British Army of Occupation has been encashed by the Exchequer, and, including the above amount, what is the approximate sterling value of the German payments in cash and in kind as against the estimated cost of the occupation of £53,900,000; and whether such German reparation payments have injured British trade?

Sir R. HORNE: The £29,000,000 referred to has been paid into the Exchequer. Owing to variations in the rates of exchange between the dates at which expenditure on the British Army of Occupation has been incurred and those at which repayment has been made
by Germany, it is not possible to answer the second part of the question by giving sterling figures. Moreover, all figures are at present subject to revision and dependent on decisions still to be taken by the Reparation Commission and Inter-Allied Agreements still to be finally settled. The gold mark figures are:—
The estimated cost of the British Army of Occupation up to 31st January, 1922, is 1,007,000,000 gold marks. Receipts of all kinds from Germany, whether finally allocated to the British Empire or not, less Spa Coal advances, amount to about 970,000,000 gold marks. It should be added that the gold mark equivalent of £2,639,500 has been paid out by the Treasury to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in settlement of that part of the British Empire's claim for Army of Occupation which was incurred in respect of Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops.
No reparation payments have been made by Germany to this country, and the last part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would my right hon. Friend tell me what is the exchange value of a gold mark—is it 20 or 16?

Sir R. HORNE: Twenty marks to the £.

GERMAN ARMAMENTS.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has information that officers of the Allied Military Commission of Control recently discovered at Spandau Arsenal two rooms stored with documents which the German Government had declared to be non-existent or lost, constituting a Return of the armament establishment of Germany at the date of the Armistice; whether the officers arranged with the German authorities that a guard should be mounted over these documents pending their inspection by the Control Commission the next day; whether, when the Control officers returned, they found that the whole of the documents had been removed by order of the superior German authorities; and what His Majesty's Government proposes to do in this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to reply. I am unable at present to confirm or deny the
accuracy of the reports referred to. Enquiries are still being made.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government have adopted a system of fictitious leases to so-called commercial companies of remount depots, motor transport services, army clothing factories, and powder magazines, being services which, under the Treaty of Versailles, it is bound to suppress; and whether the effect of these fictitious leases is to reserve to the German Government the right to terminate them at any moment and to re-enter into possession?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Report of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control of the 11th February to the Allied Military Committee of Versailles states that the German Government proposes to let a certain number of former administrative establishments, such as clothing factories, supply depots, etc., to limited liability companies for a period of 60 years. The German Government might hold a controlling interest in these factories. The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control are at present engaged in examining the question as to whether these transfers are genuine or not, and a report will be submitted in due course.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right of reentry preserved in other cases?

49. The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to the effect that in late November or in December 600 howitzers were discovered by the Allied Military Commission of Control hidden at the works of Herr Rockstroh, at Heidenau, in Saxony, and that these howitzers had been manufactured at Heidenau after the Armistice under the personal supervision of a German Government representative at the works; whether invoices have been discovered endorsed with instructions from the German Government to keep the howitzers in the factory, thus proving the direct connivance of the German Government in this breach of the Treaty; and whether the total number of howitzers of this class allowed to the German Army under the Treaty was 84?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to reply, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right
hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley on the 14th instant. The number of complete 10.5 cm. howitzers discovered was 343 besides 242 inner tubes and a number of other parts, and it has now been established that work was done upon these weapons after the Armistice. The allegation that a German official was a party to this very serious case of concealment is being rigorously investigated. The answer to the last inquiry in the question is in the affirmative.

ENEMY RAIDS (REPARATION CLAIMS).

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expect that they will have received sufficient money to pay the reparation claims for individual losses sustained in enemy raids upon this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hexham Division on the 14th inst.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: 36.
asked the Prime Minister what Department is responsible for the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes; at whose instigation were they established; who is responsible for their control and management; when did they last issue a balance sheet; who bears any loss that may be incurred; and are they running at a profit at the present time?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to answer this question, in regard to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield and published in July last as Command Paper 1280. It is stated on page 4 of that Report as follows:
In December, 1920, as the result of the recommendations of an Inter-Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Archibald Williamson, it was decided that a permanent central canteen organisation for the three Services was desirable, and that as the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Navy and Army Canteen Board were
inadequate, a new body, with a new Memorandum and Articles of Association, should be set up, to be, like the Navy and Army Canteen Board, in form a company, trading not for profit, registered under the Companies' Act, and with the title of 'The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.' The ultimate control should be in thy hands of a council of twelve, representative of the three Services in equal strength.
With regard to the last part of the question, the organisation is intended to be self-supporting, but it only came into being on 1st January, 1921, and, therefore, as stated in reply to previous questions, no balance sheet has yet been prepared.

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the balance sheet"

Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot say.

Mr. RAPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the usual thing in a commercial concern to issue a balance sheet within the first 12 months?

Viscount WOLMER: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused in business circles by the continuance of the operations on their present scale of the Navy and Army and Air Force institutes; that a resolution was recently passed at a meeting representative of 300,000 traders condemning the policy of the Government on this subject; and whether he is prepared to grant facilities for a discussion of this question in this House during the present Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the resolution referred to, but I regret that it will not be possible to allocate time for a discussion of this subject. An opportunity would arise, if desired, on the Estimates or on the Appropriation Bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.

Captain BENN: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether the resolutions for constitutional reform which it is intended to introduce into the House of Lords contain any resolution which would curtail the present power of the House of Commons; and, if so, why such a resolution is not to be submitted first for the approval of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last in reply to a question on this subject.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the veto of the House of Lords is gone, and gone for ever?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has got on the wrong bench.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Captain BENN: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the powers of the Estimates Committee it is proposed to set up are to be increased; and, if not, what is the reason for setting up a Committee which has not given full satisfaction and which cannot reach a real solution of the difficulty involved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the hon. and gallant Member does not appear to be aware of what passed in the House last week. If he will refer to the replies which I then gave on this subject he will find that his question is fully answered.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself described the Committee as not giving satisfaction and unable to reach a solution? If so, why are they to be endowed with fresh powers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did describe the Committee as one which had not yet given satisfaction, and I expressed doubts as to whether it was advisable to re-appoint it. The evident sense of the House, including the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was in favour of reappointing it, and I gave way to that sense of the House.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford the House an opportunity of debating the terms of reference to this Committee and the Amendment which I have put down?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I can give no facilities. I offered the Motion if it was taken on the terms on which the Committee was appointed last year. If the House wishes, so far as I am con-
cerned, the Committee will be set up, but I cannot set aside time for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment.

Captain BENN: Then I would like—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have the matter debated now.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBMARINE WARFARE.

CAPTAIN CASTEX'S ARTICLE.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 56.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether an explanation can be given of the alleged misleading quotation of Captain Castex's article in the "Revue Maritime" of January, 1920, on submarine warefare, by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the sitting of the Committee on Limitation of Armaments on 30th December at Washington; and whether this misleading quotation, if made, affected adversely the proposals to reduce the submarine tonnage of the leading naval Powers?

Mr. BALFOUR: Though I somewhat regret that Captain Castex's articles should not now be permitted to fall into oblivion, it may be convenient if, in answer to my gallant Friend's question, I enumerate the points to be borne in mind by those who would rightly estimate their bearing on the submarine discussion at Washington. These points seem to me to be the following:

1. It is clear, in the first place, that his statements did not commit the French Admiralty, still less the French Government, least of all the French people. He spoke only for himself; but none the less his views could not be ignored. The articles themselves were ably written, they occupied the place of honour in a French technical journal of authority published under the direction of the French naval staff, and their author is, or was, an instructor of French naval officers.
2. An important part of the first article is occupied with an exposition of German views on the proper use of submarines in war. It is in the course of this exposition that the notorious passage occurs respecting the unique value of this weapon for the purpose of accomplishing the final ruin of British sea power. But it has to be observed that though this statement is embedded in a statement of German opinions with which Captain Castex is in general agreement, he is entitled to plead
2099
that this agreement does not extend to every sentence which the statement contains. We cannot therefore conclude that he desires the destruction of England, but only that if he did, unrestricted submarine warfare would be the maritime weapon upon which he would probably rely.
3. It is true that Captain Castex, while approving German principles, sees blemishes in German practice. He thinks, as we all think, that they too often conducted submarine warfare with a cruelty which was both useless and stupid, useless because it did not further the military objects they had in view, stupid because, in addition to being useless, it outraged the consciences of civilised mankind. But for submarine warfare properly conducted he has nothing but approval.
4. The question then arises, what in Captain Castex's opinion is submarine war properly conducted? For present purposes it suffices to reply that it certainly permits the destruction without warning and without examination of merchant vessels, the sinking of liners with their crew, their passengers and their cargo. Now it was these very operations, originally devised, as he proudly claims, by French ingenuity, which came under review at the Washington Conference. It was these operations which, under Mr. Root's guidance, the Governments of France, of Italy, of Japan, of the United States and of the British Empire unanimously declared to be grossly immoral; it was the perpetrators of them who were pronounced liable to be punished as pirates.

NEAR EAST (RACIAL MINORITIES).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 58.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the League of Nations is taking any steps, by the appointment of a Commission or otherwise, to protect racial minorities in Thrace, Macedonia, and the Dobrudja?

Mr. BALFOUR: There is no commission or other body appointed by the League of Nations to supervise Treaty stipulations affecting religious and racial minorities, but there is a special section of the Secretariat-General at Geneva to deal with matters arising out of this
branch of the League's functions. The procedure is that minorities whose protection has been placed by Treaty under the guarantee of the League of Nations can, as soon as the Treaty comes into force and the Council of the League has accepted the obligation, appeal to the League, which deals with each appeal as it comes in on its merits The Treaties affecting racial minorities in Thrace and Macedonia are not yet in force.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not the case that 500,000 refugees have already arrived in Bulgaria, and is that not primâ facie evidence that they are not receiving just treatment at the hands of other countries, in the conquered territory? Is there any hope for these unfortunate people until these Treaties are ratified and, if not, when will these Treaties be ratified, or when may they expect to get any redress?

Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend has travelled into a vast area of international policy, and I would recommend him to address that question to the Foreign Office.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon I did ask a question about Bulgaria and I was told that nothing was going to be considered for the present and that the Conference in Paris was only going to deal with the Treaty with Turkey? Can the right hon. Gentleman bring this matter in some way before the League of Nations so as to get some settlement for these unfortunate Bulgars?

Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that it is not the business of the League of Nations to lecture the Supreme Council, or tell them how to get on with the business of finishing these Treaties. This is really a Foreign Office question, and I hope he will address it to the Foreign Office.

Lord R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it is not possible to urge on the Council of the League a further elaboration of the machinery dealing with this subject in view of the very great importance it is likely to assume in the course of the next few months?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there not power within the League of Nations to elaborate such machinery?

Mr. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand the question put by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). As regards the question put by my Noble, Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), I think it is quite possible that some further elaboration of the machinery for dealing with minorities may have to be made by the League. I rather imagine that practice and experience alone must be considered before we can make elaborations.

INCOME TAX (NON-PAYMENT).

Mr. G. DOYLE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons who have been brought before the courts for the non-payment of Income Tax and the aggregate amount of fines imposed; and the number of people who have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for fraudulent evasion of such tax?

Sir R. HORNE: During the year 1921 nine persons were prosecuted for Income Tax offences; in one case the charges were withdrawn, and in one case the defendant was bound over; the remaining defendants were sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the costs of the prosecution, and one was in addition fined £600.

IRAQ.

Mr. LAMBERT: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is the amount of each payment and to what potentates in Iraq are subsidies paid by the British Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No subsidies are paid by the British Exchequer to potentates in Iraq. The civil list of the King of Iraq is a charge on local revenues.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that the British taxpayer pays nothing to any of these potentates in Iraq?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite true. The potentates to whom we do pay something are outside Iraq, and the reason for these emoluments is our desire to maintain peace.

Mr. LAMBERT: Who are the potentates outside Iraq to whom we are making payments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have notice of that question.

Mr. MILLS: They are on the Front Bench.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Mr. KILEY: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether another referee has now been appointed to consider objections to the commodities included in the list of articles published by the Board of Trade under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; if so, can he state if any salary or fee has yet been paid; and under what authority or Vote this will appear?

Sir R. HORNE: No additional referee has been appointed to consider objections of the nature described, which arise under Section 1 (5) of the Act. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. Gerard M. T. Hildyard, K.C. as referee to determine any disputes arising under Sections 1 (4), 10, or 11 of the Act. Payment of Mr. Hildyard's fees will be made out of the Vote for the Customs and Excise Department, but, so far, no fees have been paid.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. KILEY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of shares held by His Majesty's Government in the British Cellulose Company; what was the cash paid for such shares; what dividends, if any, have been received from this investment; what is the present Stock Exchange quotation; and if His Majesty's Treasury are paying salaries to some of the directors, what is the amount?

Sir R. HORNE: 1,450,000 7½ per cent. cumulative preference shares were allotted to the Government under agreement dated 28th February, 1920. The circumstances under which the Government accepted these preference shares in replacement of advances made during the War have been fully explained in the House. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor as Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2nd March, 1920, to the hon. Member for East Grinstea[...]. No dividends have yet been paid. The Stock Exchange quotation on
the 21st February, 1922, was 3s. 9d. to 4s. 3d. A salary of £500 per annum is paid by the Government to each of the two Government directors.

AUSTRIA (BRITISH LOAN).

Mr. GRANT: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the Government to use public funds in the permanent reconstruction of Austria under the auspices of international cooperation, or is the policy to encourage private enterprise under the same auspices?

Sir R. HORNE: His Majesty's Government are most anxious that at the earliest possible moment Austria shall herself make arrangements with private lenders for securing such foreign credits as she requires for effecting her own financial and economic rehabilitation. The reasons for which a British Government advance has been granted in the meantime are explained in the answer which I gave to a question on the subject by the hon. Member for Lincoln on the 16th instant.

Mr. GRANT: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under whose advice Mr. Young, whom it is announced is to be in substantial control of the £2,000,000 loan to Austria, will act?

Sir R. HORNE: By agreement with the Austrian Government the expenditure from the loan made by His Majesty's Government to Austria is to be controlled by Mr. Young on behalf of the British Treasury. Mr. Young will act in accordance with the general instructions of the Treasury.

Sir J. D. REES: Is this money to be spent in paying the salaries of the Austrian public service, or is it subject to any restrictions whatsoever?

Sir R. HORNE: It is subject to no specific restriction, but it will be controlled by a representative of the Treasury. In the main, it is for the relief of Austria and in order to bring back conditions in Austria under which they can carry on trade.

Sir J. D. REES: Since this is so small a sum—merely a drop in the ocean—is it to be regarded as the beginning of a policy of loans to Austria, or as an isolated and final loan?

Sir R. HORNE: On the contrary, the House voted £10,000,000 for the relief of Austria, and this sum is the last of that money.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any news yet as to the release of the liens on the only possible security in Austria by the Government of the United States?

Sir R. HORNE: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, that depends on the action of the Government of the United States.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any news as to whether the Government of the United States is taking action in that direction?

Sir R. HORNE: A Bill dealing with this matter is in progress, but when it will be finally made operative, I cannot tell.

Mr. GRANT: In giving these instructions, is the Treasury in touch with the business and banking interests of this country who have a large interest in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, undoubtedly. The matter is being managed through a representative banking concern.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what that banking concern is?

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Are the salaries of Mr. Young and his staff paid out of the £2,000,000 loan to Austria, or paid by the British Exchequer?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

EUROPE (ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. GRANT: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government officially recognise and co-operate with the International Corporation for the Economic Reconstruction of Europe scheme?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise and co-operate with the International Corporation. My hon. Friend will remember that the general proposals agreed to at Cannes in this
connection were published in the Press at the time. The Organising Committee is at present meeting in London.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. LYLE: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the extra charge to the State if the full 10s. a week were paid to the present holders of old age pensions without any regard to the means possessed by any of them?

Sir R. HORNE: The extra cost for the United Kingdom would be about £753,000 a year.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. LYLE: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to state what would be the cost to the revenue of a reduction of 1d. per glass on beer now sold; and what is smallest factor of reduction in the cost which the Treasury can take into consideration in considering variation in taxation?

Sir R. HORNE: A reduction of 1d. per pint in the duty on beer as now sold is approximately equivalent to a reduction of 30s. a standard barrel, involving an estimated loss of revenue of £26,000,000 a year, but increases or decreases of duty are not necessarily reflected in full in the retail prices charged.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is the duty of the Government to look into the allegations of profiteering and see if he cannot keep the prices down?

CHINA TEA (DUTY).

Mr. FORREST: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received in the last three years from the duty on China tea; whether he is aware that the existing differential duty has gone far to ruin the China tea trade with this country, thereby impeding the export of our manufactured goods to China; whether the Indian and Ceylon tea associations have any objection to the removal of the differential rate; and whether this differential duty has now
ceased to have any value even from the point of view of revenue?

Sir R. HORNE: The revenue derived from China tea in the past three years has been as follows:—







£


1919
…
…
…
…
221,000


1920
…
…
…
…
179,000


1921
…
…
…
…
238,000


I have no information which bears out the statement in the second part of the question, or as to the attitude of the associations named to the hon. Member's proposal.

PRIZE MONEY.

Sir B. FALLE: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the delay in the second distribution of prize money, which begins in April of this year, he will consider the possibility of allowing all recipients to purchase War Savings Certificates at the present 15s. 6d. rate instead of the 16s. rate commencing April next?

Sir R. HORNE: I regret that I cannot make special arrangements in this matter in respect of Prize Money.

TURKEY.

Mr. DOYLE: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps are being taken to allay the irritation and hostility throughout the Turkish empire which is having a serious effect on Mahommedan India; and if negotiations are now proceeding at Constantinople with that object in view?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is hoped that the Turkish question will be discussed in Paris in the near future. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. LUNN: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sarwat Pasha made it a condition of his acceptance of the Premier ship of Egypt that the acceptance of the conditions should be signified in writing by the British Government; whether this
condition appeared in the version published in this country; and whether the British Government intends to signify its acceptance in that manner?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether one of the conditions upon which Sarwat Pasha agreed to accept office was that the financial adviser should cease to have the right of attending the Cabinet Council; whether this condition has been published in this country; and whether Lord Allenby has been empowered to accept it?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Until His Majesty's Government have announced their intentions next week, it is premature to discuss the conditions under which, according to newspaper reports, Egyptian statesmen may be or may have been willing to assume office.

Mr. MILLS: Is the Under-Secretary aware that possibly as a result of the possible death of this deportee a state of affairs might arise which would make a settlement exceedingly difficult, and why cannot the Under-Secretary press for the release of this deportee, which is all-important for the Egyptian people? The state of his health is very grave.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the wrong person, I think. The question on the Paper concerned Sarwat Pasha.

Mr. LUNN: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sarwat Pasha's conditions of his acceptance of the Premiership, as published by him in Egypt, included the release of the deportees; whether this condition appeared in the version published in this country; and whether Lord Allenby is to negotiate with Egyptian leaders or the basis of the conditions published in Egypt or of those published here?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on the 20th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes).

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

Mr. LUNN: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official Reports showing that
the Egyptian Ministry, under Adly Pasha, spent £800,000 in four months on political propaganda; whether the funds of the Egyptian National Delegation under Zaghloul Pasha have been sequestrated; and whether in each case this was done with the concurrence of the British Financial. Adviser in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to what sums the late Egyptian Government may have spent on political propaganda. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

ZAGHLOUL PASHA.

Mr. SWAN: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether Lord Allenby, in the course of his interviews with leaders of Egyptian opinion, took occasion to have an interview with Zaghloul Pasha; and, if not, whether he will now take occasion to do so?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no knowledge concerning the first part of the question. Zaghloul Pasha having been removed from Egypt, an interview now is not possible.

Mr. SWAN: Would it not be more possible, in the light of the formidable problems with which we are confronted, to come to an amicable settlement in Egypt by entering into negotiations with Zaghloul Pasha than by deporting him?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think we can, with complete confidence, leave this matter to Lord Allenby.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Leader of the House what business he intends to take next week; also, in the event of the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill being concluded before the House rose to-morrow, what other business, if any, he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If we conclude the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill early to-morrow, we will proceed with Supplementary Estimates for Irish Miscellaneous Services.
For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, we do not propose to take the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill on Monday. Accordingly, we will devote Monday and Tuesday to Supply.
On Monday we will put down the Ministry of Health Supplementary Estimate and other Estimates.
On Tuesday I propose to put down minor Estimates, in the hope that they may be finished at an early hour—something like 7 o'clock—and that the House may then adjourn, as I understand there is a widespread desire in the House to have an opportunity of celebrating the auspicious event of the day.
On Wednesday we shall propose to take the discussion on the Geddes Report.
I will make a statement early next week as to the. business for Thursday and Friday.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the repeated representations made to the right hon. Gentleman by the Labour party asking for two days to discuss the Geddes Report., cannot he see his way clear to allow us to have Thursday as well as Wednesday to discuss that Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I received representations from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) asking for an opportunity to discuss this matter, and it was in consequence of those representations that I fixed Wednesday for the purpose which I suggested in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I am sorry in the state of public business that I cannot find an additional day at the present time for that purpose. I think that the discussion on the effect of the Geddes Report upon the expenditure and the Supply of the year will be in order on various other occasions which Will occur to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I really cannot understand why we cannot have part of Tuesday. May I ask what form the Debate will take on Wednesday next—whether there will be a Resolution moved by the Government, and whether we shall have sufficient information from the Government to show the House what the attitude of the Government is towards each section of that Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really cannot, in answer to a question, make the speech which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make on Wednesday. I understand that he will take an opportunity of surveying all the recommendations of the Geddes Report, and indicate to the House the attitude of the Government upon them. I propose to move the Adjournment of the House in order to give an opportunity for the discussion. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me why they cannot have Tuesday as well as Wednesday. It is because of the state of public business.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Part of Tuesday.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are proposing to take the part of Tuesday for Estimates. As I say, it is because of the state of business, and because of the not very rapid progress we have been able to make with the Supplementary Estimates. if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would co-operate with us in disposing rapidly of these, I should hope we might find a further opportunity of discussing the Geddes Report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to have this Debate on Wednesday on some definite Resolution, so that a Division might be taken? If it is merely on the Adjournment, it will be impossible to take the sense of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the time for the House to express its judgment on the Government is on the Estimates. That seems to be the natural and opportune occasion. On Wednesday I think the convenient form would be to have a general discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not quite a usual proceeding for the Opposition to show their dissent from the Government by voting against the Adjournment?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means when he speaks of the state of public business preventing this discussion and that discussion, when he proposes to adjourn the House at 7 o'clock on Tuesday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been conveyed to me through the usual channels
that it is the general wish of the House, and I do my best in matters of this kind to conform to the general wishes of the House. I am assuming that in order to facilitate that arrangement, Members on all sides of the House who have asked for such an early Adjournment will accept the minor Estimates we put down for that day.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed further this Session with the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make any further statement on that subject at the present time. My right hon. Friend has already said that he has invited the signatories to the Treaty to come over and discuss the matter, and I think we had better wait until we have seen them.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Field-Marshal Sir HENRY WILSON, Baronet, for the County of Down (North Down Division).

CORONERS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to extend the hours during which sweets, chocolates, and certain other articles may be sold to the public," presented by Mr. MACQUISTEN; supported by Mr. Seddon, Sir Charles Higham, Mr. Lort-Williams, Mr. Raper, Rear-Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Grant Morden, and Captain Gee; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for the Second Reading, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

4.0 P.M.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I will at once give way if the Secretary to the Treasury has anything to say. If he has no material to place before the House to justify the Consolidated Fund Bill, which disposes of some millions of money, I propose to give him some ammunition by asking him one or two questions, and, in particular, first of all, I wish to ask a question of which I gave notice at Question Time. I want to raise the point about the amount of money that is owing to us from the Northern Government of Ireland for transport and weapons handed over to that Government by His Majesty's Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman has some figures, which, apparently, do not weigh very heavily with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Questions have been asked in this House about the amount of munitions handed over to the Southern Provisional Government, and they have been answered in full detail. I have previously asked a question on the Estimates about the amount of munitions, motor transport, and the like that have been handed over to the Northern Government, and what arrangement has been made for their payment. I was told by the Colonial Secretary, in reply, that the whole of the Government warlike stores for the use of the police in the Northern territory, on the date the Government took over last November, was handed over, lock, stock, and barrel to that Government, and he went on to say it was not in the public interest to give any details of the amount of munitions. In the first place, I think that was a very provocative statement to make, and it is treating our Irish fellow-subjects, with whom we all hope to be at peace, as if they were enemies. I do not want to pursue the matter at any great length, but I want to make that protest, and I think that the Colonial Secretary will regret his action before very long. I want to ask what was the money
value of these accoutrements; these motor cars, motor lorries and weapons which were handed over to the Northern Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises, because I do not see the provision on this Vote of any money for the Northern Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was discussed in Committee at some length. It comes in the Irish Vote that was taken, I think the day before yesterday, in Committee. I must ask for forgiveness for delay, because I have been expecting the Government to reply, and I have not therefore looked up the reference, but I think it will be found on page 30.

Mr. SPEAKER: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to one of the Votes which were passed in Committee yesterday?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No, Sir. It was one of the Votes which passed through Report yesterday. I refer to the Vote, Class 3, No. 22, on page 29 for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in particular to Sub-head G on page 30. That matter was discussed at some length, and I am sorry to say, hopelessly, in that we were unable to get any information as to the value of the stores which were handed over. It is on that point that I propose, first of all, to seek information. I asked then what was the value of these goods, and motor transport, etc., which were handed over. If the right hon. Gentlemen could give us the figures it would not convey information to the possible opponents of the Northern Government. It would not give the number of rifles or the number of motor lorries, because for one thing we do not know the value of the equipment and transport. The Secretary of State for the Colonies refused to give us this information, and I am sorry to say he is rather prone to do this sort of thing, so far as the regular Opposition is concerned. Now either the Government have this information, and have kept some account of the equipment handed over, and know its value or else they have not. If they have this information they ought to give it to the House. We are voting great sums of money at a time of acute financial crisis, and we really ought to be given full details
as to these sums. We ought to know exactly the liabilities which the Northern Government have taken on. I further asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman to which I had no reply. It bears on this particular Vote. I asked what arrangements were being made for repayment. Before we are asked to vote a sum of no less than £1,474,000 for this one Vote, we ought to be told what chance there is of repayment. On the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman pleaded that these were difficult times for the Government. That may be so, but even the right hon. Gentleman's barricades in Whitehall have been taken down. I do not know if he has dispensed with some of his armed guard which were accompanying him, but I am sure that he is in no danger whatever and, indeed, I very much doubt if he ever was. There is no excuse for our Government not having an account of what they handed over. I can understand the Northern Government not having a full account of what they may have received. I understand all the difficulties and I appreciate them, but there is no excuse whatever for our Government adopting these lax accounting methods. There has been too much evidence of late of these slipshod methods, and they have occurred, not only in Irish administration, but also in other branches. I think we are entitled to have an answer to this question. I want to know the value of the stores, equipment, and motor transport, which was handed over to the Northern Government. What was the agreed value or the stock value? It does not matter which, and even approximate figures will do. I do rot want to go into the details or the reasons which were given by the Colonial Secretary. I want to ask, secondly, what arrangements have been made for paying for these stores. I make no excuse for stressing this point. We have got into thoroughly slipshod financial methods during the War. Treasury control has been relaxed. It has not yet been reasserted. The control of this House over finance has been relaxed, and it has not yet been reasserted. Until this has been done we shall get nothing like financial solvency in this country. I have been able to draw the attention of the House to one clear instance of this large sum of money in one substantial Vote, and if we allow the Government to get this
Vote through without asserting our perfectly legitimate demands, then the sooner we have an appeal to the country the better, because it shows that the House of Commons has abdicated its functions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us this information.
The only other point I want to raise is in connection with a different Vote, a Vote for the Board of Trade, Class II, No. 10, on page 6. I do not want to go over the ground which was covered thoroughly on the Committee stage and and on the Report stage over this Board of Trade Vote for £610,000. I think the matter ought to be cleared up. I will not delay the House long, because I know that other hon. Gentlemen are anxious to speak. I asked for information on that Vote about the factory which was put up at Avonmouth and for which it was stated that the Government advanced £500,000, and the President of the Board of Trade was most courteous. He said he had heard something about the matter, but he had no information and he had not been able to get information, and he did not know what Vote the money was borne on, and so he asked to be excused. Of course we did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman. But that was many hours ago—I think two days ago—and I would like very respectfully to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us any information in regard to this Avonmouth factory. It was raised on both Debates on this Vote; it was raised on Committee stage and on Report stage, and no information was then forthcoming.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the Consolidated Fund Bill for these Supplementary Estimates is very largely for the main purpose of asking for information which the Government are unable or unwilling to give us during the preceding stages, and I therefore take this opportunity. I would very much like to know exactly what has happened about this sum of £500,000, whether it was in fact voted, when it was voted, and for what purpose, and what is more important now, whether the whole of this money has been lost. We are asked to vote £600,000 odd, and we ought to know whether we have any assets to put against that expenditure. In other words, has the whole of this £500,000 been lost, beyond hope of recovery, and, if so, what are the circumstances? This is a very
considerable sum of money, and I would be very much obliged if we could have some information. I have raised these two points, which I think are points of substance, and I make no apology for having raised them. There are many other very peculiar circumstances in regard to several of these votes, and I hope that this Bill will give the opportunity of alluding to them. I do not wish to raise any other points except these two simple but important matters, and I would be very much obliged if I could receive a reply.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The question which you, Sir, have put from the Chair that this Bill be now read a Second time is in relation to the first Government Measure of this Session. It is characteristic of the present Government to ask this House to vote considerable sums of money and it is not surprising to the Members of the House that at the earliest stages of this Session this House should be engaged in considering not only the voting of Supplementary Estimates, but the passage of a Consolidated Fund Bill into law. What is the Bill? It makes provision for the Supplementary Estimates which have been under consideration by the Committee during the last 10 days, and I venture to assert that the examination of these Estimates by the Committee have shown that the financial policy of the Government is cynical and cruel. It also reveals the fact that the Government is controlled by various Departments, and it also shows, as the House well knows, that the various Government Departments have underestimated the amounts that they will require to ask the House to find this year for the various services which are embodied in these Supplementary Estimates. What a contrast to the attitude of the Government just a year ago! They came to this House on the opening day of the Budget. They informed the House that they would be in the possession of a surplus of £176,000,000 for certain contingencies, but, through the passage of these Supplementary Estimates, that surplus has disappeared, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be hard pressed to balance his Budget. In considering this Consolidated Fund Bill, and these Supplementary Estimates, this House is entitled to ask itself this question. "Whether the Estimates for the coming year will be so framed that the
House of Commons a year hence will be forced to pass large Supplementary Estimates?"
It is the habit of the Government to make under-estimates, to ask for insufficient money in the original Estimates. They are then forced to come to the House month by month for further money. Although they may hold out hopes during the coming months of large reductions of expenditure, their past policy and the present Consolidated Fund Bill are dear evidence that whatever their intentions may be towards economy in future, their expectations will not mature and the burden of the taxpayer will not be lightened. I shall not refer now to the Debates which have taken place and the concessions which have been granted through the pressure of Members in all quarters of the House regarding pensions to civil servants, but I would remind the House that the total pension bill, irrespective of the cost of the Ministry of Pensions, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, partly included in the present Estimates and in the original Estimates, amounts to £7,500,000 a year.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was not in the House yesterday when a question was asked, and I ruled that the discussion on this Bill must be confined strictly to the Estimates therein included.

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the Estimate on page 50 of the Supplementary Estimates makes provision, under heading Q, for superannuation and other charges amounting to £1,082,000, and that on page 29 of the Supplementary Estimates there is an extra sum of £91,000 for the Irish Constabulary.

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be, but it does not lead up to the Army and Navy and Air Force and all the rest of the charges.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am obliged for your ruling. The statement I was making was that I omitted all these services because I realised that to discuss them would not be relevant. My only object is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the love for officials which the Government have shown has affected the size of these Estimates. The employment of many officials in the Customs and Excise and numerous other Departments,
automatically leads to heavy pension charges in the future, and unless the Government takes steps to reduce the number of officials in these Departments our pension bill will increase year by year. This Bill, and the Estimates to which it refers, are a clear indication that the Government have not had sufficient regard to public expenditure and the burden of the taxpayer.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) pressed me to give the value of the arms and equipment transferred to the Northern Government and the Provisional Government of Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Only to the Northern Government. We have had it for the Southern Government.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not the value. The point is as to the exact value of the arms and equipment handed over to the Northern and Southern Governments. I am not in a position to give the value, because the value has not been determined, and it can be fixed between the parties only when they agree upon a value. I can assure the House that, as far as the number of the arms and other equipment is concerned, a careful record is kept and that the books show whether they have gone to the Northern Government or to the Southern Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think my point is understood. Is the motor transport being run now without any agreement as to its value having been reached?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We must have some regard to the general position of Ireland at the moment. There are in Ireland two Governments struggling with the greatest possible difficulty. Everyone hopes that they will be successful in bringing peace to their respective peoples and to all Ireland. They have asked us to help them with certain motor cars, arms and other equipment. We have done so on the understanding that as soon as possible, when peace is restored, these things will be taken over at a valuation. It is pressing me too hard to ask now: "What is the value of a rifle given here, or a motor car handed over there?" I have more confidence in both these
Governments than has the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I believe that the valuation will be a fair one. Above all, it is to the interest of this House to support the two Irish Governments. There is no desire to evade the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, if I had the figure of value, I would give it to him gladly; but I do not think it is right to press me to ask these Governments to sit down now, with Ireland in the state in which it is, and to fix a value for the necessary equipment for maintaining peace.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to ask a question which I think is covered by this Bill, although it is difficult for Members of the House to know exactly what Votes are covered, as there is only a gross sum stated. I understand, however, that Army Estimates have been before the Committee. What I wish to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to implement the promise he made and the expectation he held out to the House that we should be given the fullest information about the burning of Cork City. There are several Estimates that touch on this matter, among the Estimates that have passed through the Committee of Supply. There are the unclassified services, "Criminal Injuries," and, of course, there is the pay for the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliary division.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to know on which of the Estimates the hon. and gallant Member bases his remarks.

Captain BENN: I submit, with very great deference, the Estimate on page 49, which shows that compensation has been paid for criminal injuries and an advance made on account of compensation to law-abiding persons in necessitous circumstances in cases of injury to their property. I submit also chat on the payment of the sums due to the Government forces, Auxiliaries and others, the matter to which I wish to refer might also be considered to be in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The trouble is that the Vote on page 49 is not in this Bill.

Captain BENN: That is information to me, and would be to some Members of the House. I do not know how it is possible to discover from the Bill what Estimates are in and what are not.

Mr. SPEAKER: Quite so. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Reports of Supply he can easily find out. They are summed up in the Ways and Means Resolutions upon which the Bill is founded.

Captain BENN: Is it necessary that an Estimate should be reported to the House and pass the Report stage before it goes into the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Captain BENN: Then I submit that on the Estimate for the payment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on page 29, the remarks I am about to make may prove to be in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing there about the burning of Cork City.

Captain BENN: My submission is that Cork City was burned by some persons whose salaries are included in the Estimate to which I have referred. We are in the dark to some extent, but we have had evidence repeatedly brought forward in this House and we have not had rebutting evidence from the other side. The point I am making is that the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself to give us the evidence.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that it is on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary that this should be discussed, and not on the salary of a policeman.

Captain BENN: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I would point out that very shortly we shall not be able to debate the salary of the Chief Secretary, because I hope the office will cease to exist. It looks, therefore, as if all these deeds will pass into oblivion without the House having an opportunity to express an opinion.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Before we give further sanction to the Votes under Class 6 dealing with the pensions of civil servants, I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in considering the, re-arrangement which he promised, he will bear in mind the exceedingly anomalous position which arises because of the various classes of pensions. There are three classes of pensions. There are pre-War pensioners who get no advantage. Those who retired
comparatively recently come under the special arrangements foreshadowed in the Supplementary Estimate, and benefit by the capitalised value of the bonus. There are, thirdly, those who will come on the new scale which the Financial Secretary has promised to determine. Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to co-ordinate the various systems so that these somewhat gross anomalies cease to exist? I dare-say it will not be possible to do that to any considerable extent in the revision he is making, but it is absurd and unfair that you should have these three types of pensions, based on three varying standards, for common services rendered to the same Government by the same class of civil servant.
Might I, with due respect, submit, as a new Member, that although the House of Commons is supposed to have control over finance it is exceedingly difficult, especially for new Members—I do not desire to be presumptuous in criticising the ancient forms of the House—to know exactly what are the particular services we are passing in this Bill. You, Sir, have ruled that it we refer to the various reports of Ways and Means we can discover what is before us, but with due respect, might I say if it were possible in future to simplify the way in which these matters come before the House it would strengthen that control and that knowledge which the ordinary Members have of the finances they are asked to sanction. Precedents, I know, weigh very heavily in this House, but surely some are better for the breaking, and in these times of financial stringency I think the more simple the accounts are made, and the better the ordinary Member knows what he is discussing, the more rigid economy you will be able to secure.

Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: I should like to mention the matter of zinc concentrates and the factory at Avonmouth.

Mr. SPEAKER: Might I point out to the hon. Member, as I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, that the £500,000 for a factory at Avonmouth is not included in this Bill, and, therefore, it will not be possible to discuss it. The other matter of the zinc concentrates is in order.

Sir H. DAVIES: I do not know whether I can incidentally refer to the factory and the position the Government are in, being
under obligation to deal with these zinc concentrates? It might be an advantage for the Government to have some interest in factories erected to deal with these imports. The fact of the matter is, this business was begun as a war scheme to provide against possibilities. No Vote, so far as I know, was ever taken in this House. The Port of Bristol has shared in the responsibility, because that port has invested a considerable sum of money to deal with these zinc concentrates should the necessity arise. I do not think the House need feel that what money has been spent in regard to these factories is money thrown away. It is quite possible the time may come when they may be very useful for the Government to deal with the obligations which they have incurred.

Mr. MOSLEY: I should like to address a few questions to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury on the subject of the Vote on. page 35 of the Estimates—Superannuation and Retiring Allowances. It is inevitable from the decision at which the Government arrived, in deference to the universally expressed opinion of this House, that a very great anomaly in the treatment of retiring civil servants will be constituted, and that very grave inequalities will exist between those who retired in the past and those who will retire in the future. I should like to ask, in support of the appeal already advanced to him by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), whether he proposes to co-ordinate the present system, rent as it is by two completely different methods of dealing with these cases, and whether he has any proposals for remedying, in any respect, the inequalities which will exist as the result of this decision or concession to the opinion of the House.
It is scarcely necessary to point out, after the Debate on the subject, that under this decision civil servants retiring in the future labour under an immense disadvantage as compared with those retiring now. Already those who have just retired or are retiring under this Supplementary Estimate are at a great disadvantage compared with those who retired a year ago—with civil servants who retired when the cost of living had reached its highest point, when the index
figure on which their bonus was based stood at something like 170 above pre-War level. Those men derived a very great advantage even over the civil servants who went on for another year or two, and who are retiring now. The bonus of those who are retiring now is computed upon an index figure which stands at 70 above pre-War level. Therefore there is a disparity existing even under the present system between the civil servant who retires to-day and those retiring earlier. To such an extent does the disparity exist that those retiring to-day have only about half the pension of those who retired at that time in respect to the amount of pension which is calculated on the war bonus. Already, I say, that disparity exists; now the hon. Gentleman in deference to the opinion of the House proposes to constitute a graver injustice, because he has decided that the pensions of all civil servants retiring in the future shall not be based in the same way even upon the very modified war bonus now existing. Even had the hon. Gentleman not come to this decision with the falling index figure and consequently the falling war bonus, a man retiring in the future would be at a disadvantage with those retiring in the past. As it is, the grievance and unequality are accentuated and aggravated.
I do think it legitimate to submit to the hon. Gentleman that it is highly inexpedient to penalise those men who have served their country longest, and consequently best. He is putting a premium upon early retirement. All the men who have hung on through the difficult and arduous period of reconstruction to the present time are at a great disadvantage compared to those who retired comparatively early. I cannot help feeling that such an obvious injustice must give rise to the very gravest dissatisfaction in the ranks of the existing civil servants. All those who remained and are subject to this new concession will feel, and feel justly, that, as compared with those who have departed in former times, they are being very harshly treated. These considerations must lead to the conclusion that if this concession is not to give rise to very great and very legitimate grievances this provision, which the hon. Gentleman introduced yesterday, must be made retrospective to the pensions already granted. That is the only way to equalise the incidence of
this revision, otherwise the hon. Gentleman is bound to find himself immersed in the most bitter feelings and jealousies between the existing civil servants and those who have retired. All these men will labour under a sense of great grievance.
An argument was adduced by the hon. Gentleman against making this concession retrospective. He said we are in honour bound by the most solemn obligation and by a written contract not to revise the pensions which have already been granted. But the day before the hon. Gentleman was arguing that he was in honour bound by the most solemn obligation not to revise the pensions basis of existing civil servants. The hon. Gentleman pointed out how the word "emoluments" under the Statute was defined. That definition was accepted by the civil servants. He pointed out that he had accepted the ruling of the Whitley Committee in this definition. If his argument be accepted that it is illegitimate to revise the pensions of the past, that argument is easily applicable in respect to the pensions of existing civil servants. The hon. Gentleman retained the services of these men in the Civil Service on the ground that their pension would be paid on a certain basis which he now proposes to revise. If we are so solicitous on this question of honour in respect to the past—a point which in my opinion cannot be sustained—if we are so solicitous on this question of honour, ought we not to consider that it is equally binding upon us in regard to existing civil servants? The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if any of these men had known that this concession was going to be made they would have left the Civil Service, under more favourable conditions, as hundreds of civil servants already have done.
Much has been made by the hon. Gentleman of the honourable obligations which ensued upon his decision. Then, in face of pressure from this House, which did not adopt the same view as himself, and which took the view that under the economic conditions of the day it was legitimate to revise the argument in regard to war bonus which had been entered into under entirely different conditions—under pressure from the House the hon. Gentleman decided to throw over the standpoint which he had adopted the day before as involving the
honour, as I understand it, of the Government and of this House. There is no question of degree in matters of honour. Either we are bound to all these men, or not at all. If the hon. Gentleman, consistently with honour, can throw over the existing civil servants, he can throw over the civil servants of the past. The hon. Gentleman rather reminds me of the man on the sleigh who was pursued by the proverbial wolf. He had several small babies of honour in the sleigh. He had to throw over one of them to retain the others.
I trust the hon. Gentleman will be able to clear up this point which I confess is exercisng me to some considerable extent—that he will be able to explain the seeming anomaly which has arisen in connection with this question of honour—that he will be able to say why he has suddenly realised these considerations in regard to existing civil servants, and why he considers himself still bound in honour to the civil servant of the past? I cannot see, if we are bound by these considerations in regard to past civil servants, we are not equally bound to those who still remain in the Civil Service! Certainly, on every ground of expediency and justice if it can be effected in consonance with honour, the obvious duty of the hon. Gentleman is, it seems to me, so to revise the whole system on which our civil service pensions are computed as to co-ordinate and equalise these very grave injustices that are being effected under the present system, and which are being aggravated under the concession which he has made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Debate is a waste of time. The House is accustomed to listening to speeches by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and regards them always as being perhaps the most cultured and interesting speeches we have from the Opposition Benches; but the hon. Member must be aware that nobody was listening to his speech, not even the people in the gallery. We have listened over and over again to the same arguments, we have had them on the Committee stage for two days, and we had them on the Report stage.

Mr. MOSLEY: And they have not been answered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the hon. Member does not expect to get an answer now. By this discussion we are not
really embarrassing the Government, and there would be a great deal to be said for the discussion if we were embarrassing them. The Government ale quite glad to spend the time of the House in this way with the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury looking after the business of the House of Commons.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am here to look after my Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is having his valedictory siesta on the Government Bench. I would like to get on with something fresh, stop this fooling and get on with the business. At the present time we cannot discuss the Geddes Report or unemployment, and we are tied down to the discussion of these trifles. The people are largely unemployed, and the House of Commons is wasting its time. What do you expect the effect of all this will be on the people? It is just this sort of wasted afternoon that brings the whole of our parliamentary institutions into contempt with the man in the street. They know that while trade is going from bad to worse, and while nothing is being done to help the unemployed, the Government cannot make up their mind whether to economise or spend money, and consequently the House of Commons has to spend its time in this way. I wish to enter my protest against discussing futilities, and against opportunities of discussing what really matters being refused to this House.

Mr. KILEY: On the question of superannuation I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can say how many of the Custom House staff have been superannuated, because that might throw some light on the question of congestion at the Customs. I want to know whether these delays are due to a number of the staff having availed themselves of the opportunity of retiring. I do not blame them because they are entitled to do so and are acting within their rights; but there has arisen a good deal of delay, and if that is due to the fact that a substantial number of the staff have retired, would it not be better to induce some of them to return, if only for a temporary period, until the present congestion and delay has been overcome. If that is not possible will the Financial Secretary
undertake not to facilitate any further retirements until this congestion has been overcome. I do not think we should facilitate the retirement of any more of these gentlemen whilst the work is so much in arrear. Of course it may be that these delays and congestions are not in any way due to the reasons I have suggested, and in that case there is no point in what I am saying, but if the congestion is due to this cause I should be glad to hear from the Financial Secretary that he is willing to use his influence to induce those who have retired to return to their duties, if only for a temporary period, and I hope he will not facilitate any more retirements at the present moment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer forthwith the questions which have been put. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) has expressed some anxiety lest the retirements in the Customs will prejudice the efficiency of the Customs. Allow me to assure him that that point has been most constant in the mind of myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the greatest care has been exercised to make this scheme of re-organisation and retrenchment consistent with the smooth and prompt conduct of the business of that Department. I know there have been delays here and there, but they are being dealt with. The actual figures of retirement are as follows: In the year 1921–22 the number of retirements during the 12 months of those upon salaries of over £500 was 261. For the same period the retirements of those with salaries under £500 number 480, making a total of 741 in all. Of course this does not represent altogether a saving, because, to some extent, they have been replaced, and we have not been able to economise every one of those places. I am prepared to inform the House that what has been done has been done without any sacrifice of efficiency. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) advanced some criticisms about the form of this Bill, and I wish to inform him that what the Bill covers is always available by adding up the totals of the Votes passed on Report. This Consolidated Fund Bill deals with the Votes for Superannuation, the Royal Trish Constabulary, the Local Loans Fund, and Votes for the Board of Trade.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is that stated in the Bill itself?

Mr. YOUNG: No, but I have worked out a little sum myself in order to save the hon. Gentleman the trouble. As to the rest of what is dealt with in this Bill, they cover what has been discussed last week. Whenever you change a pension system, anomalies are unavoidable. As a matter of fact, it is very easy to exaggerate the extent and the anomalies due to changes in that part of the pension due to the bonus, but the amount is very much smaller than has been suggested. I would ask the hon. Member for Harrow not to press me even yet for further details as to what our new scheme is to be. All I would say is that in working out the principle it will be within our mind as an important consideration to reduce to the greatest possible extent any anomalies of the sort which have been mentioned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Friday).—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, ETC., IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the Registry of Deeds, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Ireland, and of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, and of Officers lately of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland now attached to the Lord Lieutenant as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that this Supplementary Estimate does not constitute a new charge. It is necessary
because under the Act of 1920 the Courts in Ireland were divided. We have now the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland. No extra expenditure is incurred under this Vote as the cessation of the Supreme Court of Judicature of all Ireland coincides exactly with the setting up of the new Supreme Court in Southern Ireland, and I am asking the Committee to give authority to transfer to the new Court in Southern Ireland the powers of the Supreme Court of Judicature of all Ireland. On the total Vote granted by the House in the original Estimate for the Supreme Court of. Judicature of all Ireland, there has been a great saving so that no extra money is required for the setting up of both these Courts.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is pleasant to hear that the Committee is not going to be asked to grant any further money, but I think it would be more satisfactory for us to know how much money has been saved by the exertions of the high officials to whom my hon. Friend has referred. I would draw the attention of the Committee to pages 20 and 21 of this Supplementary Estimate and the following pages up to page 25 which show the extraordinary and expensive way in which this business is being conducted at the present time. I find that in the Lord Chief Justice's offices there is a permanent secretary, a private secretary, a first-class clerk and a chief clerk, another first-class clerk, and trainbearers to Lords Justices of Appeal. I want to know what these gentlemen are doing at the present time. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us if any of these Courts are functioning, because that is a most important point in view of the answer made by the First Lord of the Treasury to-day.
5.0 P.M.
We were told a little while ago that it was of the utmost urgency to proceed with the new Government of Ireland Bill, so as to clothe the Provisional Government with the necessary powers. But if the whole position is resolving itself once more into uncertainty it looks as if the only certain thing going on will be expenditure which this country has to meet. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what savings on the original Estimate have been effected which show that no further charge is being put on the
National Exchequer? In the second place, what are these courts and officials doing at the present time? What law courts are functioning in Ireland? Is it the law courts paid for by the National Exchequer—and this Supplementary Estimate shows that the money is being drawn from the National Exchequer—or is it the courts set up by the Provisional Government? If so I presume the Provisional Government is raising money to maintain its own law courts. Obviously we do not want two sets of law courts and two sets of law officers in Ireland. This is a question of real importance. Why should the National Exchequer go on paying these heavy sums when no one knows what the position is in Ireland at all, Are not the Government going to meet by way of economising the very uncertain and inchoate condition which obtains in Ireland to-day? Why should all this paraphernalia continue to be carried on? Is the Provisional Government going to stabilise the form of Government? It seems to me that, whatever happens, whether there is a stable condition or an inchoate condition in Ireland, this country is going on paying.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps I may explain why I am examining these Estimates. I would like to do so for the information of the hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It is not because I do not want to discuss unemployment and other great questions of policy. I do want to discuss them, and I wonder why the hon. and gallant Member who is vice-chairman of the Labour party does not arrange for a vote of censure to be put down. There are plenty of methods of going for the Government in regard to these questions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has no relevance to the question before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it worth while asking one or two questions about this Estimate. I hold that, until the Government know that the Estimates are going to be carefully examined by the House of Commons, they will go on wasting the taxpayers' money. It is the discussion of details—a few thousand pounds here and there—that matters, and until we put the fear of God into the spending Departments they
will take no notice of us. Bureaucracy is the strongest bulwark of the party of reaction. This is a Vote for £10. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is really costing no additional money at all. Why are we only asked to spend £10 in setting up the Southern Ireland Supreme Court, whereas in the next Vote we are asked to spend £19,800 on the Northern Ireland Supreme Court. It may be said that the original Supreme Court of Ireland is being used for Southern Ireland and that a new Supreme Court has to be provided for Northern Ireland. But surely some allowance should be made in respect of the assets of the old Supreme Court. There are some buildings and other assets, no doubt, otherwise legal gentlemen in Ireland would not be so eager to continue the Courts. Why is not the sum of £19,000 equally divided between North and South? I admit I am actuated by a desire to see the Southern Government accorded decent and fair treatment. We have given it plenty of unfair treatment up to date, while the Northern Government has been a spoiled and pampered pet. Perhaps the right Gentleman can answer the questions I have put to him.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not quite catch what the Chief Secretary said in explaining this Vote, but as far as I understand it, it is to all intents and purposes a new Vote. It, is quite true there is no necessity for any additional money, but, as I gather, this is money which has already been obtained for an object which apparently has not been carried out, and which is now to be used for the purposes enumerated in the Vote. The footnote says:
Provision for the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) for the full year 1921–22 was taken in the original Estimate.
That apparently was never spent. Then the footnote continues:
The setting up under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, of the Supreme Court for Southern Ireland and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland necessitates the seeking of Parliamentary sanction for expenditure by these bodies.
Therefore the original Estimate was never spent, and the money contained in that Estimate is to be used as stated in the footnote. I was under the impression that the Act of 1920 was no longer in existence. A certain Section of it is not
yet in operation. We have, rightly or wrongly, surrendered to superior force in Ireland, and that being so the Act of 1920 no longer operates. Why set up these Courts when, in all probability, they will be superseded by the Sinn Fein Courts of the Irish Free State. If the money has actually been spent, that is another illustration of the evil of spending money before sanction has been obtained from this House. I fail to see why we should set up these Courts under the Act of 1920 when that Act has been abrogated. I do not say this out of any sense of hostility to the Government—I am sorry for them—but there is no law or order in South Ireland at the present moment, and therefore it is a complete farce to set up Courts to administer justice. This burden is to fall on the British taxpayer. If we do not pass this Estimate, I take it that the sum already voted will be applied to the reduction of the National Debt—a very good thing to do. I gather the Labour party already have a scheme for reducing the National Debt in some wonderful way. I am told it was printed in the "Daily Herald" this morning, and I think I may therefore appeal to the members of that party to give me their assistance in securing that this sum of £67,000 shall be used as a beginning for the reduction of the National Debt.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. INSKIP: I find by Section 38 and the following Section of the Government of Ireland Act that the Supreme Court of Judicature of Ireland is to be divided into two parts, and I apprehend that what we are doing to-day is really to give effect to that, and to set up a Supreme Court of Judicature for Southern and for Northern Ireland. When I turn to the financial provisions, I find, in Section 21 (2) of the Act, a provision which I confess was rather a, comforting one at the time, namely, that provision shall be made by the Parliaments of Southern and of Northern Ireland for the cost, within their respective jurisdictions, of Irish services, and, as a taxpayer of Great Britain, I am it a loss to know why we should be required to provide money for Irish services when the Act requires that provision shall be
made for them by the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland. It was one of the sweet parts of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, that the British taxpayer was going to divest himself of some of these burdens in favour of the Trish taxpayer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And forget them.

Mr. INSKIP: As my hon. and gallant Friend says, we were going to forget them, and I hope he will carry that out in the spirit as well as in the letter. Why are we asked, in conflict with the provisions of Section 21 of the Government of Ireland Act, to provide these moneys? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles that there appears to be a good deal of paraphernalia connected with these Courts which might be dispensed with, at any rate so long as we are providing Irish services for. Irish people. Of course, if they like to pay for their own services, that is a matter which only concerns them. I invite my right hon. Friend to save this £69,000, or whatever it is, to the British taxpayer, and to give to the Irish governing bodies—to Mr. Michael Collins or whoever else it may be—the hitherto unknown privilege of paying for their own services.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, although this is a Vote showing a nominal increase of £10, it does not mean that the British taxpayer is being called upon to pay any more money for the purposes of the Law Courts in Ireland, but I venture to suggest to him that that is not so. A certain amount of money was voted in the original Estimate for the Law Courts of all Ireland, namely, £220,006. That was the total amount voted for the Law Courts of all Ireland, and what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in this case is to take-the whole of that sum and apply it to the Law Courts in Southern Ireland. Therefore, he will require a further Estimate for the detached portion in the North of Ireland, and that will come as an additional charge on the taxpayers of this country. That will be found clearly set forth in the next Estimate. If I may, just for the purpose of illustrating what I mean, refer to that next Estimate, I would point out that a sum of £19,837 is required for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern
Ireland. Therefore it is clear that there is a large increased charge on the taxpayers of this country, and I think we ought to have a fuller explanation from the right hon. Gentleman before we pass the Vote in this form, because I do not think that any of us except the right hon. Gentleman himself understand it. I should also like to know from him what is the position with regard to these Law Courts now? The position has evidently changed. I gather from this Estimate that we are a year in arrear—that we are not dealing with the present situation, which has been very materially altered within the last few hours by the postponement of the self-government of Ireland for a period of three months. Are we to take it that this country will be called upon to pay the whole of the expenses of the Law Courts of Ireland for the next three months because the Irish people have decided to postpone their election?

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £20,000.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is only a £10 Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before this Vote is taken, I should like to hear whether the sums in it will appear on next year's Estimate—whether we shall have to pay next year also for the salaries of these very extravagant staffs—or is this the last that we shall see of these salaries? Is Ireland going to take on the job henceforth and pay for its own justice, or lack of justice? If this is the last we are going to see of it, we will pass even this £10; it will be cheap at the price. What the taxpayer of this country wants to know first of all is whether we are getting clear of these charges. In the second place, are we also free from liability for the pensions and superannuation allowances of these train-bearers, first-class clerks, second-class clerks, map makers, women clerks, male clerks, and examiners? Are we hound to provide pensions for them, or do the pensions fall upon Ireland? If we are bound to pay them pensions, is the sum that we shall have to pay allowed as a set-off in the financial adjustments between ourselves and the Irish Free State? Further, is it possible that this
£67,440 which is being paid by the taxpayers of this country for these Irish judges' officials may also lie set off when the problem comes to be worked out as to how much we owe Ireland, and how much Ireland owes us? I think it is very important that our bookkeeping should be careful at the present time, and that we should see that all items which can legitimately be set off in this problem of indebtedness should be taken care of and watched, so that we may get the advantage of them. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), may I say that I am not one of those who criticise looking into all these financial questions very closely. I think that is vital.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is resuming his conversation with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, which I asked him earlier not to do. Even now, he seems to be addressing the hon. and gallant Member, and not the Chair.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will certainly address you, Sir Edwin, in this matter, because I think it is very important that the Committee should understand the Position taken up by the Labour party. We do not in the least object to discussion in detail of genuine points in these Supplementary Estimates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What has the Committee to do with that now?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I might finish my argument on this point. We do not object to detailed discussion, but we object to its repetition over and over again. We have, during the Committee stage, the Report stage, the Second Reading, and the Third Beading, the same arguments repeated. I consider that to be waste of time, and it is against that that I have been protesting. The first statement of the arguments, and the answers from the Opposition Benches, are essential to all good conduct of finance, and I hope we may have answers to those points which we have raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that I never repeat myself, although I sometimes repeat questions which the Government shirk and will not answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will certainly do my best to answer the questions put to me. I quite agree that close scrutiny of these Estimates is essential. In the first place, this money for which I am asking in a Supplementary Estimate has already been voted by the House in the original Estimate. I am asking for this Supplementary Estimate, not for Judges, but for officials of the Courts of Southern Ireland, without which officials those Courts could not be carried on.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say for what period this sum is being voted—for how many months?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Only till the close of the financial year.

Captain BENN: From what date?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: From the beginning of the financial year. The original Vote was for the year now closing. I am asking the House, by the common, accepted expedient of a token Vote, to approve the payment of the money which has been already voted to the officials of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, as set up—and here I come to the root of the whole matter from the constitutional point of view—by the Act of 1920.

Captain BENN: That was not in force during the whole of the year.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.

Captain BENN: The appointed day was in July.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member's interruption is really not relevant. If he will only allow me, I will make it as clear as possible. If I do not make it clear enough, there is still plenty of time. Under the Act of 1920, we set up two Supreme Courts in Ireland in place of the one Supreme Court of Judicature that existed before. I am now asking this Committee to approve the payment, to the officials of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, of the salaries and emoluments which are set out in meticulous detail in the Supplementary Estimate, because, since the setting up of those Courts by the operation of the Act of 1920, we have two Courts in Ireland instead of one, and I must get the approval of the House for these payments.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Does the Court exist now in Southern Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, certainly. All these Courts are functioning, and all these officials are functioning. Yesterday, after considerable Debate, I got a Supplementary Estimate because of the increased activity of these very Courts. They are all functioning, and these officials, I submit, are entitled to their emoluments and salaries which the House has already approved. It is because of the operation of the Act of 1920 that I must come to the House again, not for fresh money, but to confirm the Vote for the payment of a reduced number, largely of the same officials of the same Courts, but restricted to Southern Ireland. I would deal with the Northern Courts at the same time, but it is on another Estimate. It is so simple and so clear that the Committee will adopt it without question. As to this Vote, I can assure the Committee that the Courts are functioning. The amount of money saved out of the total Vote granted in the original Estimate for all the Courts in Ireland, in spite of the fact that we now have two Supreme Courts, in the North and the South, is about £5,000. Not only am I not asking for any more money, but the saving on the whole is about £5,000. The rejection of this Vote would simply mean that all the officials essential to the carrying on of the law courts of Southern Ireland would be refused the money they have already been promised in the original Estimate. It is said these staffs are swollen and unnecessary. I like to see the continuance of such quaint names as, for instance, Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper, which has a very interesting history. The word "Hanaper" was attached to the Clerk of the Crown both in this country and in Ireland, which is much more conservative in some things than we are. Hanaper really means a hamper, and the Clerk of the Crown with a hamper used to receive certain writs and seal them up and allocate them to the persons who deserved them. Hence the expression Clerk of the Crown and of the hamper in which the writs were carried. The name has been preserved in the vocabulary of the Irish Courts. It has been dropped in reference to the same officials in this country. The Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper in Ireland is also the Keeper of the Great
Seal, he issues all election writs and is in every way a most useful officer. One of the results of the defeat of this Vote, I am afraid, would be doing away with the salary of the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper, and it might delay the election which we all hope for in Southern Ireland. I hope I have cleared up that point. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) says he can quite understand the Court being set up under the Act of 1920 in Northern Ireland.

Mr. INSKIP: And in Southern Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They are both set up under the Act. In Southern Ireland there has been, since the Courts were set up under the Act, a treaty made, and undoubtedly the time will come when this House will not be responsible for the Courts in Southern Ireland or for the payment of the judges or the officials, but in the meantime we are responsible, and I do not think it is fair to say we must stop the payment of the officials of the Courts, who are essential to the administration of the law, before the constitution of the Free State has been passed by Parliament and another scheme and another set of paymasters are evolved by the law.

Mr. INSKIP: I am obliged to the right hon. Baronet. Am I to understand that but for the Treaty being made we should not be asked to provide the money to pay for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Southern Ireland? I thought that was what the right hon. Baronet put to me, that it is the Treaty that has altered the position, and the Treaty having been passed we are bound, during the transition period, until the Treaty becomes effective, to provide moneys which are intended, if the Government of Ireland Act had been in operation, not modified by the Treaty, to be provided for by the Parliament of Southern Ireland. The point I take is that we cannot in this year provide moneys which an Act of Parliament passed by this House said shall be provided by the Irish people.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Had it not been for the Treaty, this Supreme Court in Southern Ireland would have been in the same position as the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland. Under the Act it would have been a reserved service, and
the payment of the expenses would have been taken into consideration under the head of Reserved Services. We cannot deny the fact that the Treaty means that, sooner or later—I am sorry I cannot fix the date earlier—the Courts in Free State Ireland will be taken over by the Government of the Free State, and the charges of this Court will no longer be a charge on the Votes of this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked is this the last Vote for Southern Ireland? I cannot answer that. I am only responsible for this Supplementary Estimate, and I think we are in duty and in honour bound to pass the Vote and enable the Courts to carry on. As for pensions, in so far as the staff of the Courts is pensionable, Article 10 of the Treaty says:
The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof.
Further, as to pensions which are already being paid, my view is, that a share of these must be allocated to any new Government that takes over the Government of the Free State.

Sir G. COLLINS: Is that in the Treaty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read the only reference to it. Before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) came in, I tried to answer his questions. The Courts are functioning. This Vote does not deal with the judges but with the officials who are essential to enable he judges to carry on their work. I hope the Committee will give me this Vote for another reason, that I may pass on to the Vote for the Northern Supreme Court and elucidate that to the Committee.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I can assure the Chief Secretary that I share his desire that these officials of the Courts in Ireland should not be deprived of their salaries simply because there has been a change in the constitutional position in Ireland. They were not responsible for the change any more than this House was originally. They were not responsible for all the mis-government and the rest of it in Ireland. I am not going to be led into
discussing who was, but I have a very good idea who is responsible for it. It is not us, at any rate. Therefore I think these officials of the Court should receive the moneys which were voted to them in the early part of the year, and should not be deprived of their salaries and so on simply because of this change in the Constitution owing to the Treaty. But will the Chief Secretary give an undertaking that a proper proportion of this cost, which the British taxpayer is asked to pay now, will be demanded from the Irish Provisional Government or the Government, whatever it may be, that succeeds them in the Irish Free State? The Provisional Government have been put in authority by the Government ever since the Treaty was signed. It is quite true that it was done illegally, but it was done by the British Government, and the Provisional Government have been in de facto Government of the country ever since December last. That being so, surely the Provisional Government or their successors ought to pay for the Law Courts and for the officials during the period they are in de facto Government of the country. Why should we pay? We have not been able to interfere effectively in the government of Ireland since 6th December last. We have had very little power to do anything. Our troops were withdrawn, and so on. Inasmuch as the execution of the decrees of the Courts and the general government of Ireland has been in the hands of the Provisional Government ever since December last, the Provisional Government of Ireland should pay the cost. Will the Chief Secretary give us an undertaking, when he is asking the British taxpayer to pay this sum now, that he will ask and obtain from the Provisional Government or their successors a proper proportion of the cost since the date when the Provisional Government came in operation?

Sir F. BANBURY: The Chief Secretary has given us a very interesting description of the office of some gentlemen who are described as something and Hanaper, but that is not really what we wanted to know. The point we really wanted to know the Chief Secretary has not answered. Those who have listened to the Debate understand the situation perfectly well. Under the Act of 1920 there were to be two Courts instead of one.
That is one of the great economies which were to be made by that Act—two people to do the work which hitherto one had done. One Court was to be set up in Northern Ireland, and another was to be set up in Southern Ireland, but, as I understand it, according to Section 21 of the Act of 1920 Southern Ireland had to pay for its new Court. One of two things arises. Either the Act of 1920 is still in force, and the English Government are bound to see that it is carried out, in which case Section 21 applies, namely, that this Court should be paid for by the Irish people and not by the English, or the Act is not in force, in which case the Irish Free State should set up their own judicature. In neither case, as far as I can see, should we be compelled to find this sum of £67,000, which might go in payment of the National Debt. That is the point which the Chief Secretary has avoided. He has not dealt with it, beyond saying in an interruption that this is one of the Reserved Services. I have forgotten what the actual effect of the Reserved Services is, but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that while we do not wish to deprive anyone of his salary for work done, we should see that the people who are bound by law to pay that salary, pay it.
I am very much afraid that one result of this so-called Treaty, if it ever comes to anything at all, is that all the safeguards in regard to money will be wiped away, and that we shall find that the British taxpayer will have to pay for everything that these people are doing, and that any undertaking by them that at some future date they will make these payments good will be perfectly illusory. If I am wrong, and if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) is wrong, I should like to have that made clear to me.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Baronet, and I shall be glad if the Chief Secretary will explain why the Vote has increased so much since last year. On the Vote dealing with prosecutions the right hon. Gentleman told us that the reason for the increase was the greater activity in the Courts. What is the reason for the increase in this Supplementary Estimate over the Estimate of 1920–21? It is an increase of nearly £100,000.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: These Supplementary Estimates are rather confusing, and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation. We have one item, "Miscellaneous Services (Ireland)" grant, under which a sum of over £1,100,000 is being granted to Ireland. I have a distinct recollection that we were informed that that amount has been provisionally granted to the Free State Government to enable them to carry on. Surely in that case they ought to be able to finance their own Supreme Court out of the amount granted without coming here and asking for grant after grant when they have been given a lump sum to enable them to carry on their services. I may be wrong in my assumption, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain the matter.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) is under a misapprehension. The Supplementary Estimate to which he refers has not yet been before the Committee. Therefore, his remarks are not applicable to this Supplementary Estimate. I did not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth). There is no increase in this Vote. There is a decrease in the total Estimate. This is not the voting of fresh money, but a readjustment of old money for the same purposes for which the original Estimate was prepared and voted. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) urges that if the Free State of Ireland wants a Court it ought to pay for it. I quite agree, and it will pay for it, when the Free State Government takes over the administration of Southern Ireland; but we are in this interim period in which these Courts are Crown Courts, carrying on their duties from day to day, for the Provisional Government has not yet been clothed with the authority that will enable it to take over these Courts. It is impossible for me to say how much of this amount, which has already been voted, will commence to count for the government of the Free State of Ireland. Matters of finance between the British Government and the Government of the Free State will have to be cleared up, and there will be a great balance sheet. It is specified in the Treaty that the Free State has certain obligations in regard to the National Debt,
and War pensions. There must be an account, and if the administration of justice is not taken into account I think it ought to be taken into account. I cannot play the rôle of prophet, but I agree with the right hon. Baronet in principle.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Member reply to the point which I raised? As the Provisional Government have been de facto in power since December last they should pay a proper proportion of the cost of the Courts from the date when they entered de facto into power.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Provisional Government has not yet been clothed with power.

Sir J. BUTCHER: It has de facto power.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has not de facto or de jure power. Until by Orders in Council or in some other way by legislation of this House another Government is legally constituted in Southern Ireland, this House is responsible for carrying on these Courts. The judges are judges of the Crown, and the officials who serve them are officials who are carried on the Votes of this House until by legislation of this House a change is made.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and I think I am more or less arriving at a solution of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman made one mistake. He said that this money has been voted. If it had been voted there would be no necessity to come and ask for it now. What has been voted is a sum for a different object, and now he is asking us for authority to take the money already voted and devote it to a different object by transferring it to this Vote. The Act of 1920 is very clear. Section 8 (8) says:
… 'Irish Services' in relation to Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively are all public services in connection with the administration of civil government in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
In Section 21 (2) it says:
Provision shall be made by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland for the cost within their respective jurisdictions of Irish services.
I have shown from Sub-section (8) of Section 8 that Irish services are defined as:
all public services in connection with the administration of civil government.
and in Section 21 it is laid down that provision shall be made by the two Parliaments for the cost of Irish services. When we come to the reserve services, we find that Section 47 says:
All matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall be reserved matters"—
it does not say that we shall pay
until the date of the Irish Union.
When is that going to come about? It may be in 200 years, or it may be, which is more probable, never. Even if it were coming off shortly it does not deal with the fact or override the provision of the Sections which state that the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and the other Courts attached to it shall be paid for by Southern Ireland. Even if such an ignorant person as myself were pleading before one of His Majesty's judges in the High Court, I should have been certain to have substantiated my argument upon that point. It is perfectly clear that Southern Ireland ought to pay this money. Why does it not pay? I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the real reason is that the Act of 1920 and the so-called Treaty have both been failures. The Act of 1920 is not in operation in Southern Ireland, although it has not been repealed. The Southern Irish have never recognised the Act of 1920, and, therefore, its provisions, though they have the force of law, cannot be carried out. As to the Irish Treaty, what we have heard to-day makes some of us think that possibly we shall never hear anything more of it. As to what will happen then, I do not know.
It is clear that the British taxpayer ought not to pay this money. Provision has been made that Southern Ireland should pay, both in the Act of 1920 and in the so-called Treaty of last December. I am inclined to think that, under the circumstances, we have to pay these people, and that it might be advisable to let the right hon. Gentleman have his Vote, but, on the other hand, I should have liked a Division in order to show the country the extraordinary anomalous
position into which we have got through these various agreements in regard to Ireland. I doubt whether we shall ever be repaid. Even if the right hon. Gentleman went back to Ireland as Chief Secretary and undertook a great campaign such as that which he carried out in order to restore law and order, I doubt if he would get it. I understood him to say that an attempt will be made by the English Government at some future date to obtain repayment of the money. If I am right in that, I shall not press my reduction to a Division, but if I am wrong I shall press it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say yes or no.

6.0 P.M.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I want to make my position clear. I suggest that inasmuch as the Provisional Government has been in power since December last under the direction of this Government, they ought to pay a proper proportion of the expense of running the country since that time. The Chief Secretary replied that the Provisional Government is neither a de facto nor a de jure Government. I agree that it is not a de jure Government. The Bill proposes to make it a de jure Government, but that it is a de facto Government is undoubted. If not, why was Dublin Castle surrendered, why were all the military barracks and the police barracks surrendered? Why have all the arms been handed over? The Colonial Secretary says that the arms and munitions have been handed over because the Provisional Government are a Government, and because the Government of Great Britain want to enable them to govern. Therefore, it is perfectly obvious that it is a de facto Government, and has been a de facto Government since December last, under the terms of the Treaty. Therefore, the Chief Secretary will see oil reconsideration that I was right in saying that they were a de facto Government. If they are, surely they are bound to repay the cost of running their Government, which they have now been carrying on since December last. For that period they should pay us a proper proportion of the salaries of these officials for whom the British taxpayers pay. If this is clear to my right hon. Friend he should give us an undertaking that he will, at any rate, demand from the Provisional Government this sum. I agree that constitutionally and financially
the position is in a hopeless muddle, owing to the action of the Government, but on this point there appears to be no room for doubt.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Chief Secretary and I have discussed Estimates together on many occasions during his stormy period of office and my peaceful tenure of this bench. I know him well enough to know that he does not omit to answer questions through any wish to be discourteous, and either he has not the information asked for or he does not mean to give it. I hope that in this case he will answer the question which I put to him. The original amount voted was £67,000 for the Supreme Court for the whole of Ireland. You have taken out six populous, wealthy counties with a great deal of crime and civil litigation and a Court is set up again for the remaining counties of Ireland. There surely must be savings, as the Supreme Court is for a smaller and less populous area and crime is not confined wholly to the South. There ought to be savings and it is monstrous that the whole of the staff, the officials, scriveners, criers, clerks, assistant clerks and tipstaffs should continue to be paid by us. The Southern Court only ask for Apparently they are to have the whole of the money voted by this Parliament under the next Vote 18A. We are voting £19,837 new money. It seems to me peculiar that there has not been a division of this new money between the two Courts. I should have thought it much better to transfer some of the original money voted to the Northern Court and charge half to the Southern Court and half to the Northern Court. These obscure points leave me very suspicious. When I see a little sum like £10 on the Estimates and find that the House voted £67,000 I become very suspicious, and that feeling is increased when such a very able parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman says that this is not new money and that we need not discuss it. The questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) reinforce my suspicions and I would be glad of an explanation.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) has raised an extremely important point.
The Chief Secretary tells us on the Supplementary Estimate that we are responsible for law and order in Ireland and must pay for it, but I have always understood from the various speeches of the Colonial Secretary in this House that the Provisional Government are responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland at present. Whenever there was a communication regarding outrages in Ireland or kidnapping, the Colonial Secretary did not telegraph to the Viceroy, our representative, to say that the position was to be taken in hand, but to Mr. Collins, of the Provisional Government, thereby showing that Mr. Collins is responsible for law and order, and if we are withdrawing our troops, and so on, we cannot be responsible, and therefore why should we have to pay for keeping up the law and the processes of the law in Ireland? I understand the difficulties in which the Government are acting, but the point is extremely important and should be cleared up.

Mr. HOHLER: I would ask the Chief Secretary why he thinks that the Supreme Court in Ireland shall be a reserved service? Under Section 38 of the Government of Ireland Act the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall cease to exist, and there shall be established in Ireland a Court having supreme jurisdiction in Southern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland, and a Court having supreme jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and a Court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland. I would like my right hon. Friend to make quite clear his position that the payment of these judges of the Supreme Court is a reserved service. I do not follow it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Undoubtedly the two new Supreme Courts are Reserved Services.

Mr. HOHLER: Where is it stated?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is stated. There is no doubt about it. I would also remind my hon. Friend that, being reserved services, the expenses of the Courts would be recoverable by deduction from the Irish share of the taxes due to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. I cannot go into the question
on this. Estimate, because it comes all on the next Estimate, but I shall do my best to clear up the points that have been raised. I hope that the Committee realise the serious condition of things in Ireland. I think that everybody does. I hope that they also realise that if there is one part of the Constitution in any part of the Empire which this House insures it is the judiciary, and that the judiciary, having been set up, as it has been, by law, cannot be altered except by another law, and therefore those public servants who draw salaries from the Votes of this House, under the legislation of this House, are certainly entitled to look to this House for a continuance of their salaries until the House, by legislation, alters the position. That is exactly the position.
If the Act of 1920 operated normally in the South, as it does in the North, there would be no question, because both Courts would have been reserved services, and the expenses of those Courts would have been recoverable by deduction of the Irish share of taxation both in the North and South. The Act applies to the North. It applies only in part to the South. Its operation is affected particularly by the Treaty which was approved by this House by a very large majority. The House, having approved that Treaty, another set of circumstances and a different situation are immediately created. This is a temporary and anomalous situation. It is to cover the period of that anomalous situation, up to the time when another judiciary, with the consent of this House, shall be established in Ireland, that this House must bear the expense of the Courts of the Crown. Therefore, during this period, unless the House wish to reverse their opinion in approving the Treaty, it is impossible in my judgment honourably to go back on the original Estimates by not voting the money for which I am now asking.
The Provisional Government in Ireland has great power. It is responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland, but it is not responsible for the course of the Crown, and it cannot be until by legislation a change is made in the status of the judiciary of Southern Ireland. The answer to the question, "Why does not the Provisional Government pay for these Courts?" is that we have not given the Provisional Government power to raise
revenues and obtain money. They are carrying on by the Votes of this House. The question of a balance sheet which must be struck by the Government of Southern Ireland or the Irish Free State and the British Government is another great question. When that balance sheet will be struck and how much, if any, will be due to us it is impossible to say. As soon as the Constitution is set up in Southern Ireland all these expenses must automatically cease. It is the interval alone with which I am dealing. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised the point that there should be a saving. There is a saving on the original Estimate, because for that amount we have been able to set up two new separate Courts, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Where is it shown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: On this Vote. The fact that this is a token Vote shows that no additional money is required. My contention is, that it represents a saving on the original Estimate, and a very great saving, that we have been able to set up both these Courts without asking the House for more money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly point out where the saving is shown on the Estimate? It should be down in black and white.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should have thought the mere fact that this was a token Vote showed that there was no additional expenditure.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We should be getting some money back.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish we were, but if the Committee will permit me to go on with the next Estimate I will explain the point raised in connection with the sum of £19,837 about which the hon. and gallant Member has asked a question.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is not this the position? Savings have been effected as the old régime stood, but those savings have been applied to the additional cost of the new régime, and so no real saving has been effected.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I accept that statement.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I desire to have one matter cleared up. I do not object to Parliament paying for things which it controls, but I want to know whether at present we are in absolute control of the Courts in Ireland? We are obviously paying for them. The Supplementary Estimate is not the same as the original Estimate. Of course, when the original Estimate was presented, the Treaty had not been signed. The Treaty has been signed between the presentation of the original Estimate and the presentation of the Supplementary Estimate. I want to know if, since the Treaty was signed, we are actually in control of the Courts?

Mr. RAWLINSON: While I certainly would not vote against this Estimate because this liability bas been incurred and we cannot get out of it, I must, at the same time, protest against the view which the Chief Secretary has put before the Committee. No doubt the Courts are there and no doubt they are nominally under control, but when you come to Assize Courts in the South of Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that they are doing their work at the present time? Does he suggest that there are prosecutions for murder before His Majesty's Courts? Is it not a notorious fact to anybody who has been in Ireland that His Majesty's Courts are doing nothing at all in the way of keeping law and order, because the people do not go before them? Yet we are asked to pay and we shall have to pay. I think we shall have to pay, and therefore I do not propose to vote against the Chief Secretary getting this Estimate, but I venture to protest against the suggestion that we are getting value for our money, because, as a matter of fact, we certainly are not. As to the suggestion that the Provisional Government is responsible for law and order, I do not know whether they are or not, but the fact remains that these Courts are not really being used by the Irish people at all, and prosecutions for murder, and I am sorry to say there have been a number of cases of murder, are not being brought in these Courts at the present time.

Colonel NEWMAN: Before this matter is decided I should like to reinforce the
views of the hon. Member who has last spoken. As one who knows something about the South of Ireland, I should like to find out exactly what is happening in regard to the King's Courts. Are the Judges going on circuit in connection with the Spring Assizes, and are the Grand Juries being summoned? Will everything go on as in pre-War times? We have not been informed on that point so far. Another matter I should like to impress upon the Chief Srecretary is that one of the chief duties of the County Court Judges and the Judges of the King's Bench Division was to assess claims for injury brought before them by those who had suffered either personally or in property. This was a very big thing, and under the 1920 Act it was directed that if the County Court Judge or superior Judge had more cases brought before him than he could deal with he should be empowered to get the assistance of a barrister of ten years' standing to act as a temporary Judge. The British Government has now come to an agreement with the Provisional Government that no more cases of this kind shall be heard in these Courts. No man or woman injured in his or her person or property is allowed to go before the King's Courts to make application and receive their awards. Thus one great slice is taken away from the duties of the Courts.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the County Courts?

Colonel NEWMAN: I am referring to the High Courts. The appeal goes from the County Courts to the High Courts, and this appeal to the High Courts is equally forbidden under the arrangement I have mentioned. Therefore here is a big slice cut away from the duties of Irish Judges by an agreement between this Government and Mr. Collins' Government. That being so, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if we cannot have economy while quite admitting the great importance of carrying on these services?

Sir F. BANBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has made the position quite clear, and it is this. The Act of 1920, which provided for the payment of new services by Southern Ireland, has not been accepted by the people of Southern Ireland and, conse-
quently, though it is still on the Statute Book, it is practically a dead letter. Then the Government, having withdrawn all troops and all support of order from Ireland under the impression that a certain thing called a treaty was going to be accepted, and that treaty not having been accepted, and no Government having been set up in Ireland, we find ourselves in this extraordinary position. By the Statute passed in 1920 the Southern people are bound to pay for the Courts of Law, but as they have not accepted the Act they repudiate payment for the Courts of Law, and in addition they have rendered these Courts inoperative—at least so I gather from the remarks of hon. Members who have just spoken.

Colonel NEWMAN: I want to know if that is the case.

Sir F. BANBURY: If they sit and make decrees, they cannot carry out those decrees because they have no force to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself has a great presence and a fine voice and he might make, either in this House or on the Bench in the Courts in Ireland very startling pronouncements and give great verdicts in favour of justice and the rights of property, but when that is done, who is to carry them out? Practically what we are doing is, wasting all this money by paying these gentlemen for a duty which, through no fault of their own, they cannot perform. If we are responsible for and are hound to pay the salaries of these judges and officials, there should be some force left in Ireland to enable them to carry out their decisions. If that is not so, then we should not be asked to pay. It all comes back to this. Is this House going to visit the sins of the Government upon the heads of these just people? I am rather inclined to think that we ought not to do so. The question then arises: How long are we going to be so tenderhearted to the Government? How long are we to allow this to go on? While I think it would be better not to go to a Division on this, on the other hand I hope that the Government will not think we are easily turned away from our own opinions, because we do not wish to visit the sins of the unjust upon the heads of the just. The result of going on in this way and the result of there being no order and no law is that we have to pay large sums of
money to unfortunate people who are supposed to do something which no human being can possibly do in present circumstances. We ought to see that in future the Government themselves should remain responsible for these sins of commission.

Amendment negatived.

Original question again proposed.

Sir G. COLLINS: I waited until the last minute for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to rise in his place. He has explained to the Committee during the last hour that large savings were effected under his administration, but these, apparently, were according to the modern Government rendering and meaning of the word "savings." There is no real saving at all. It may be that in the coming campaign, which the Government is determined to wage throughout the country, they will try to delude the electors that they are going to save public money, but when they urge on the Committee that by their policy they are really saving money in this case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) points out there is no real saving in the administration of justice in Ireland, but only a transfer of expenditure from one Vote to another. If I understood the Chief Secretary correctly, he agreed with that statement. During this Debate the Chief Secretary has often told the Committee that if they would only allow him to get Vote 18 he would be able to explain on Vote 18A how these savings are effected. My only object in rising is to invite the Chief Secretary to explain to the Committee now how these savings are being effected.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think that is exactly what I said. My point was that on the next Estimate dealing with Northern Ireland I would show how the amount of £19,837, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, was accounted for. I have tried to show several times that out of the original Estimate granted by this House we have set up two courts in Ireland as contemplated under the 1920 Act, without asking the House for any more money, but simply by a readjustment. The hon. Members for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and Finchley (Colonel Newman) raised again the question of how far the courts are functioning in Ireland. Nobody knows better than I
do the great difficulty of the courts functioning especially in five or six counties of Southern Ireland, but they are doing their best, and the courts are more active than we anticipated. I do not think the officials—and remember we are now dealing only with officials—should be thrown over by this House because of the disturbed state of Ireland, especially in the southern counties. We are living in an intervening period, and all who have the interest of Ireland, North and South, at heart are most anxious to keep, as far as possible, the continuity of the courts of the Crown.

Colonel NEWMAN: I want to ask the Chief Secretary this question: Will the Spring Assizes be held in Cork next month?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say, but I hope they will be. My hon. and gallant Friend knows there is a great amount of crime and a great amount of civil litigation which all parties in Ireland are agreed can be tried by the Courts of the Crown, and it is only when you get into the domain of what are called political offences that you get controversy, but however well or ill the courts are functioning, they look to this House for support and for their emoluments.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Of course, this House does not desire that these officials should not be paid, but all the same we are not getting value for our money here, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman, with his coloured version of the matter, suggesting that we are. There is not the slightest doubt that crime is going unpunished broadcast in the South of Ireland—every form of crime—and that the King's Courts are not effective, as they are in England and elsewhere, in the suppression of crime. As a matter of fact, we are paying money and getting absolutely nothing in return.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,837, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for such of the Salaries and Expenses
of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under Section 38 of the Government of Ireland Act, the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland ceased to exist and was replaced by a Supreme Court for Southern Ireland and a Supreme Court for Northern Ireland, with a High Court of Appeal for the whole of Ireland. The expenditure for both these Courts will be met out of the original Estimate voted by this House for the Supreme Court of Judicature of all Ireland that existed prior to the 1920 Act, but a separate Vote is required for the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, although no additional money is required to be voted by the Committee, because savings sufficient—approximately some £25,000—have been made on the original Estimates, and a very large part of this has been applied to setting up the new Court in Northern Ireland. The reason why this sum of £19,837 is asked is this, that out of the savings of about £25,000 this amount had to be surrendered to the Treasury, and I am asking the Committee to re-grant it, not as new money, but as old money. The important point about this Vote is that not only am I now asking for no new money, but this is a reserved service under the Government of Ireland Act, which is in operation in Northern Ireland, and the cost will be recovered by deduction from the Northern Irish share of reserved taxes, so that this Supplementary Estimate should meet with the whole-hearted approval of every member of the Committee, and I am sure the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London feels that this is the dawn of a new era.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think it is the dawn of a new era. It is an old era revived, namely, those who are honest and just and who obey the law pay, whip those who are dishonest and do not obey the law get off.

Colonel NEWMAN: Our great anxiety in the South of Ireland is to know exactly what our taxes will be when we become citizens of the Free State, and here is something, at any rate, fairly comforting, because here is the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland only asking for £19,837, whereas the total cost in the whole of Ireland came to £67,440. Therefore, I take it we may
look for this, that the cost of the Judiciary in the South of Ireland will be nothing like £67,440 under the new form of Government, and probably will not be more than about £20,000. I hope that is so, and I notice that in this Vote very many things are omitted which appear in the previous Vote. If hon. Members look through these two Estimates, they will see that the Estimate for Northern Ireland is far cheaper than the other Estimate which we have just passed, and therefore I hope we shall have an assurance that when these Courts are run in the South of Ireland, they will be run as economically as in the North.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) is correct, and I rather think that the taxation of Southern Ireland later on will be very low and will afford a refuge for the industries ruined by the extractions and extortions of this extravagant Government; but what is the period that is covered by this sum of £19,837? Is it for the whole year, or only for the period since the Northern Government took over the government of Northern Ireland and the beginning of the next financial year? I rather think, from the various footnotes in the Estimates, that it is only for three or four months, and therefore it may be more expensive than we thought. This is a new service, although it is not so marked at the top. There was no corresponding service in the original Estimates, for the very good reason that there was no Northern Judicature in Ireland, and therefore I think we may be well advised just to look at the scale on which justice is to be administered in Northern Ireland. This new State, the result of the Balkanising process in Ireland, is, I think, smaller than Albania and about the size of Montenegro, and we are now dealing with their Supreme Court. First of all, there is a Registrar, very highly paid, with three assistant Registrars, receiving from £700 to £900; three first-class clerks and four second-class clerks, and a permanent secretary to the Supreme Court. That is the staff. Then we have an election petitions officer, who is entitled to £25, but is only given £8 in this Estimate, which confirms me in thinking that this is only for three months. There-
fore I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley was rather too sanguine. Of course, the Chief Secretary told us that this is no new money—only a matter of £19,000, a mere fleabite—but we ought to be getting something back out of our old Vote. Apparently, if the Government do not spend any more money, they come down to the Committee and expect us to fall on their necks and weep and to say, "How wonderful you are"; hut we are looking for some savings.
Turning again to this Estimate, I see that there is the Chief Clerk's Office for all divisions, which is very highly staffed; then there is the Land Registry of Northern Ireland (Central Office), the Office of Taxing Master, the Office of Accountant-General, Probate (Principal Registry, Belfast), with subordinate clerical staff for all Departments. Then there is Judges' personal staff, including three trainbearers and four tipstaves. There are three criers and the usual minor officials, including a charwoman, who receives the magnificent emolument of £4—a part-time job, I suppose, of sweeping away the cobwebs in this new Judicature. That is the staff, and I ask any hon. Member to look through these figures, when I think he will agree that it is a very swollen staff of legal officials for a small State like Northern Ireland. I do not wonder that the partition Act v as extremely popular with the gentlemen of the long robe. It must have been welcomed with great joy. This is a duplication of the Supreme Court of Ireland Then we come to Incidental Expenses. The area of Northern Ireland is small the area of Southern Ireland is large In the last Vote, the car hire, travelling and incidental expenses came, I think, to £280 for the larger area, and much greater population, and that included postage and telephone charges for Land Registry. In the case of this much smaller State, the cost is £400, not including Land Registry. As we have to find this money, we are entitled to ask why is this extra, sum required for the Northern Parliament?
We were told that an explanation would be given as to why the whole of the money originally voted for justice in Ireland had been diverted to the Southern Courts. The new Court gets the new money. We are told that the savings will come to £25,000, which will be sur-
rendered, I suppose, next year. In the meantime, we have to find this money, and I am extremely surprised that the Northern Government, which does not seem to be represented here at this moment, in spite of the new Member they have to-day, increasing their numbers—I am very surprised that this Northern Government which, apparently, keeps such perfect order, and is so solvent, is not footing this Bill. I really wonder, after what we have done for Northern Ireland for many years, and not least in the last year or two, should come to us and ask us to pay for their Courts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they not footing the bill?"] Of course not. This is extra money over and above the money voted last year. All the money voted has gone to the Southern Supreme Court. This new Court was set up at the end of last year, and we are paying for it. It is very wrong, indeed. I hope that if the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory, the Committee will support me in insisting on the reduction I move.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken was in error in the last part of his speech. As I understood the Chief Secretary, every single penny of this Vote will be repaid to this Government by the Government of Northern Ireland. I quite agree that it is a most important point which has got to be cleared up. If we can be assured that every penny of this money is going to be repaid by the Government of Northern Ireland, I sincerely hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not insist on his Amendment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Government of Northern Ireland gets the savings of £25,000, and out of that they pay this £19,000. If I am wrong, I do not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but let us have the matter cleared up.

Major M. WOOD: This Vole will repay a good deal of scrutiny. One is impressed by the number of officials to be attached to the Courts of Northern Ireland, as compared with those in Southern Ireland. So far as I gather, the Courts in united Ireland previously had a certain number of officials, and those officials have been divided between Northern and Southern Ireland. I do
not know on what principle they were thus divided, but I assume that is so. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication as to how the dividing-up took place. Were officials allowed to elect under which of the Governments they were to go? Was a Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ireland entitled to say: "Well, under the new circumstances, I am going to Belfast," or could he say: "I am a Sinn Feiner, and, therefore, I will remain in Dublin"? It seems to be a point which is pertinent to this particular Vote. That is not all. One would like to know who was responsible for deciding how many courts and how many officials were to be attached to those courts.

Mr. INSKIP: Why not read the Act, and see?

Major WOOD: Some may he in the Act, but, I am sure not all.

Mr. INSKIP: They are all in the Act.

Major WOOD: At any rate, the salaries attached to these offices are not given in the Act, and I should like the Committee to compare the salaries of the officials in Northern Ireland with those of the officials in Southern Ireland. Take the Registrar's office, which appears in both Votes. We find there are 11 officials in the Registrar's office for Northern Ireland and the same number in Southern Ireland, though there is no comparison between the size of the two areas, and there can be no comparison in the duties which have to be performed. Yet we have the same number of officials, and, so far as I can gather, the same salaries in each case. If you compare individual offices, you will find the same discrepancy. Take, for instance, the judge's personal staff. We find in Northern Ireland that the private secretary to the Lord Chief Justice is to get £350 a year. In Southern Ireland, where, I imagine, the work of the private secretary would be much greater, he only gets £200 a year. Why this difference in salary, and why should a man who, on the face of it, one would expect to have more responsible duties, be paid less? I should like to know whether the British Government are responsible for these offices, whether they have approved all of them, and whether they have approved the salaries attached? Take the "Trial of Election Petitions." It is quite a small
office. It gets £25 in the one case, and £10 in the other. Again, it is the Election Petition Officer of Southern Ireland who is paid less. We have to find this money immediately, and, therefore, we ought to be satisfied that it is being paid out properly, and we ought to have from the right hon. Gentleman a statement that he has gone into this question, and thinks the numbers and salaries are proper, because, if we do not get that, I do not think we should give him the Vote.

Dr. MURRAY: I do not think that this Debate should be going on in the absence of the entire representation of Northern Ireland. Fancy a day on the Scottish Estimates, and not a Scottish Member present to see that justice was being done to Scotland! It makes it all the more suspicious to my mind that the representatives for Northern Ireland think they are making a very good bargain for themselves. Therefore, I am inclined to suggest that the discussion of this Vote be postponed until we have representatives of that part of the country most intimately interested to give the Committee some reason for this Vote. Someone suggests to me that there is some function on, but that is no reason why there should not be watchdogs here for the party. It is not fair or polite to the Committee that the whole of the Members for Northern Ireland should be absent when Estimates dealing with their province are before the Committee. The only official who seems to be underpaid in these Estimates is in the Northern Election Petitions Office. If justice were done in Ireland, in connection with every election there would be an election petition. I have heard it suggested that one man voted 100 times at a certain election. I suggest that in connection with every Parliamentary election, and, I suppose, civic election as well, in Ireland, if justice were done, there would be an election petition by the unsuccessful candidate. I protest against going on with this discussion until the Members for Northern Ireland show sufficient respect to the Committee to come here when we are voting them money. I, therefore, desire to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that.

7.0 P.M.

Captain W. BENN: The Members from Northern Ireland are not affected by this
Vote. It is the British taxpayer who is affected; there is no question about that. The matter is rather complicated, and I will try and put the situation as I understand it. I think that, technically speaking, the Chief Secretary was mistaken when he described this as a reserved service. If he will look at Section 9 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, he will find certain specified things that are reserved. This is not one of them that is included.

Mr. INSKIP: Yes. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Section 47, he will see it all set out there.

Captain BENN: I have seen all the Sections before. The position is that we paid for this Court before, and are continuing to pay for it now in two parts instead of one, but as an Appropriation-in-Aid we are getting the portion of the Imperial contribution which is provided for. There is an Imperial contribution of £18,000,000 to be paid by the two Irish Governments when they are set up. I submit to the Committee that we are deeply interested in the amount of the Vote, and that if a saving is effected the British taxpayer benefits, inasmuch as the contribution in respect of the judicial services now is limited by the Section I have quoted, which fixes the contribution to the Imperial Exchequer from the two Irish Governments.

Mr. INSKIP: Section 24, Sub-section (1) (b), provides that there shall be deducted from the sum to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom to the Exchequers of Southern and Northern Ireland
the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom during the year of the services so remaining reserved services.
That provides that it shall be practically reimbursed by this country.

Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman is again referring to this as a reserved service. I do not think that that is so. I understand that the cost falls on the British Exchequer, and that we may be reimbursed, so far as we can be, from the contribution from Ireland. If that falls short we have to make good the difference, and therefore it is natural that the matter should come on the British Estimates, and that we should be keenly interested in the figure and not the members for Northern Ireland. I suggest
that when the Chief Secretary tells us that not a penny of this really affects the pockets of the British taxpayer, he does not correctly represent the facts. As a matter of fact, we have to pay, and therefore everything that has been said with regard to the size of the staff and as to whether it is commensurate with the very small territory and population of Northern Ireland is very germane. It is not a matter which affects Ireland at all, but it affects hon. Members representing the United Kingdom.

Mr. INSKIP: I am rather unwilling to intervene, because the Chief Secretary must know his own Act of Parliament better than I do. Under Section 47 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the administration of the Courts in Northern Ireland are reserved services. If the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Bean) will refer to Section 24 he will see that it provides that there should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom to the Exchequers of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland a sum equal to the Irish share of reserved taxes, but they will only get that after taking out the cost of the services which remain reserved services, and this Supreme Court remains a reserved service. Therefore, so long as we have to pay for that reserved service, the cost of that is deducted from the payment which would otherwise go to the Government of Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland—I express my opinion for what it is worth—we do get this money back.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Does that make any difference? Supposing there is a balance against us, is the amount of the reserved taxation likely to exceed the amount of our liabilities? If so, I shall be very pleased indeed, and shall take no further part in the discussion on this Vote. It is abundantly plain to me that it is not so, and that we shall not get all this money back again from Northern Ireland. Therefore, I agree that this has nothing to do with the Members from the North of Ireland, and I am not surprised at their absence this evening. It will not make any difference to them. There will always be a debit against us, and the British taxpayers are the persons who have every reason to keep this Vote down as low as possible.

Sir F. BANBURY: The law is perfectly clear. In Northern and Southern Ireland these services, being a reserved matter managed by the Imperial Parliament, the net cost is repaid by Northern and Southern Ireland. The repayment is made by a deduction from the sum which has been paid by Great Britain to, Northern and Southern Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) said: "Supposing the sum we have to pay to Northern Ireland is less than the net amount which Northern Ireland has to pay to us, what then?" That is a very ingenious question which I cannot solve. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, whose ingenuity is greater than mine, will be able to do so. I presume we shall have a claim against Northern Ireland, because the amount we shall have to pay to her will be less than she will have to pay to us. If I owe my hon. and learned Friend £10 and he owes me all I have to do is to pay him £5. If, however, the position is reversed, I, can claim from him the repayment of the debt, because the sum that he has paid me is not sufficient to cancel it. Under the Statutes dealing with the Common Law of England it would remain a debt, even though he had not sufficient money to cancel it. That is so with regard to Northern Ireland. The representatives from Northern Ireland are not here. The reason is because they are not going to repudiate their bargain. They have accepted the Act of 1920, and there is no question about their coming here because they do not want to repudiate it. The representatives of Southern Ireland are not here either, and for reasons quite the reverse. They have repudiated their bargain and do not want to be here to justify their repudiation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would like to clear up a few of the points which have been raised Surely there is no question about it; this is a reserved service. I cannot understand how the Committee and how hon. Members who sat during the Debates upon the Bill of 1920 can question the fact that this is a reserved service. Because it is a reserved service, the Chief Secretary is responsible to this House for it. He can only he responsible for reserved services. In Northern Ireland, when judges are to be appointed, recommendations are made to the Prime Minister by me and then submitted by
him in the normal way, because the judiciary is a reserved service. It is also clear that, being a reserved service, under the Government of Ireland Act the cost will be covered by deduction from the Northern Irish share of reserved taxes. If there is a balance against us—well, I will not go into that, for I cannot look into the future. I can make the plain statement that there is a deduction on this reserved service from the Irish share of Irish taxes, The Members from Northern Ireland in this House have certainly never failed in any respect to live up to the spirit of their obligations, and I am sure they never will. That clears away the question of this being a reserved service.
The point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as to the disparity in the amounts in the column of the Supplementary Estimates. That is accounted for by the fact that this Supreme Court of Northern Ireland was set. up on the 1st October last, half-way through the present financial year. The amounts in the column vary because the appointments were made at different dates subsequent to the 1st October. I do not think, with some knowledge of the Courts of the Empire, that this is at all a swollen list of officials for the Northern Parliament area. I can reassure the Committee by saying that every appointment is reviewed and agreed to by the Treasury in England before it is incorporated in this Supplementary Estimate, and submitted to this Committee.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And the salaries also?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly, every item. That is part of the reserved service, and it was accepted in 1920. There is nothing unusual in having tipstaves and criers in connection with the administration of justice.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is this total of £19,000 odd for six months or for a year?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is for six months, commencing on the 1st October last and up to 31st March of this year.

Colonel NEWMAN: Then, in a normal year, the cost would be about £41,000?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say what it would be for a year.

Colonel NEWMAN: The judges—

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The judges are not in this at all. They are on the Consolidated Fund, which is quite another matter altogether. Hon. Members refer to the tipstaves and the criers, but I would point out that this is only carrying on into our modern system the old historical names. The persons who do so will be none the worse for old traditions. I should have thought that anyone with knowledge of them in this country would be proud to maintain them. I cannot pretend to deal with the detailed and irrelevant references of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), who criticised the absence of the hon. Members of the Northern Parliament. He does not blame me for that.
This is an Estimate which the House ought to be pleased to pass, first because it does not add any additional money to the original Estimate, but represents a re-arrangement among the high officers in the Courts of Ireland and establishes two courts. The amount is ultimately taken into consideration and recovered by deduction from the Northern Parliament's share of reserved taxation. I should have thought this would have commended itself to the intelligence of the Committee.

Major M. WOOD: How is it that the bonus on salaries in Southern Ireland is £27,000, almost half the total grant for salaries. In the Northern Parliament it is only £5,000 out of £19,000? Why is there such a large bonus in the one case as compared with the other?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is fixed in conference with the various authorities, and the bonus varies with the rank and length of service of the recipients.

Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to make a suggestion. When we have very difficult legal points, might we not have the, assistance of the Irish Law Officers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am very glad the right hon. Baronet has raised that point. In the interests of economy I have done without the Solicitor-General for Ireland since last July, and I have saved at the rate of £2,000 a year. I have also done without an Attorney-General and saved at the rate of £5,000 a year. It is
because I am trying to economise that I am without those two distinguished exponents of the law.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we have the British Law Officers here?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No; it is not the duty of the British Law Officers to come here. It is the duty of the Irish Law Officers to be here, and I should have thought that their absence would have weighed in my favour in regard to this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is an extraordinary doctrine for the Chief Secretary to lay down. We pay the Law Officers of the Crown very highly indeed for their services. The least they can do is to be here when legal questions are being discussed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having dispensed with the assistance of the Irish Law Officers, but that is all the more reason why he should obtain the assistance and support of the English Law Officers, and their presence is a duty to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that has very remote connection with the question before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will leave that point. The explanation has been given very fully, and I do not want to make things difficult. For these reasons I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VII.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, Ireland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Grants-in-Aid; and the Cost of certain Services arising out of the War.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is almost with regret that I rise to propose the last supplementary Estimate, because the
Committee has treated me so very fairly. In this case I am pleased to say that again I am not asking for any additional money. I am asking for the approval of the Committee to pay out of the original grant already voted last year a sum of £6,000, which is set out in detail at the bottom of page 40 of the Supplementary Estimate. This is a grant of £6,000 in aid of structural repairs which are urgently required at the Peamount Sanatorium, which has been a great blessing to Ireland. It was founded by the Marchioness of Aberdeen, and it is a great tribute to her work in the cause of Ireland. This sanatorium is one for tubercular patients including a great number of ex-service men, and it is in danger of having to limit its activities because of the non-repair of certain necessary structural parts. Out of the total Vote originally granted I am asking the Committee to vote me this token Vote of £10, although in fact it means paying £6,000 for the necessary structural repairs of this splendid sanatorium. I should have thought with that explanation that a Debate would have been impossible, but if there is any point to be cleared up I shall be glad to reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is a very admirable philanthropic service, and I glad that the necessary steps are being taken to keep this admirable institution in order. I wish to ask for an explanation of these savings. I would not raise any objection even if this £6,000 went straight into the pockets of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, but I want to be clear whether it is new money or not. I see that there are anticipated savings on other Sub-heads of £5,990. Under ordinary circumstances these savings would be paid back into the Exchequer. Therefore when the right hon. Gentleman says the savings amount to £5,990 and all he wants is another £10, and that it is quite in order to hand that money over to the Peamount Sanatorium, he is really taking money for this purpose which should come back to the Exchequer, and which has been taken off the original Estimate. Therefore this is really a payment of £6,000, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to ride off by saying that this is not new money except to the extent of a matter of £10. At any rate, this is money that
ought to go back to the Exchequer, and money that we do not save we spend, and therefore this is money spent. Let us face the facts. That being the case, I would like to ask a question about these ex-service men who are mentioned in paragraph R1 at the bottom of page 40. I would like also to know what is going to happen next year to the Peamount institution. It is no good spending £6,000 on the Peamount Sanatorium if it is going to be shut up. I should think the Provisional Government would probably carry on this institution. I would like to ask whether this institution is in Southern or in Northern Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In Southern Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has it taken patients from Northern Ireland, and, if so, will it take them again in the future. I hope it will, and I cannot imagine an institution of this kind being closed to any cases of consumption that could benefit from treatment therein. I would like to know what is being done in regard to the ex-service men who are there as the patients of the Ministry of Pensions. Their position in Ireland is not very pleasant, and it is worse than those in England to-day. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman has thought of this matter, and has he entered into any arrangement?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This question has been subject of the most serious consultations and conferences with representatives of the Provisional Government in Ireland, and I do not think these men will suffer under the new régime. In any event, I agree that they must for all time he the first consideration of this House, because they benefit very much from this sanatorium, which, but for this Vote, would be in danger of closing some part of its activities. It is true that, but for this proposal, the anticipated savings would come back to the Exchequer. That is a fact, but my point is that this is not new money, but money which has already been voted.

Question put, and agreed to

Orders of the Day — CLASS II.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): This Vote is one to authorise His Majesty's Government to take part in the Brazilian Centenary Exhibition to be held in the summer and autumn of next year at Rio de Janeiro. In view of the very long association which this country has had with Brazil, and the very large amount of British capital which has been used in the development of Brazilian undertakings, I feel that the House will certainly desire that this country should be represented at the Brazilian Centenary, which is unique in Brazilian history. An invitation has been given to the British Empire, the United States, and to the principal countries in Europe. They have accepted the invitation of Brazil to take part in the centenary and all are going to erect buildings in the Exposition.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that while I am wishful to secure authority—to be in order—to spend up to £35,000 this year on this centenary, that the country will not be called upon to find more money than has already been given to my Department, because I have been able to effect savings in administration in the present financial year sufficient to cover the £35,000. I also have to acknowledge the action which has been taken by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Rothschild), who has organised a committee in the City of London representing large Brazilian interests. That Committee has raised a sum of money which will be used, together with the Government grant, for the promotion of the British part of the Centenary Exhibition. One other point. The House, I feel sure, will wish to be assured that if we do take part in this exhibition that the money to be spent will be spent in the most businesslike way possible to secure the best results—

Mr. KILEY: Hear, hear!

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I felt sure my hon. Friend would want an assurance on that point. We are working in conjunction with the committee, to which I have referred, representing the principal Brazilian interests in this country, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro has a similar commitee to assist
him. In that way we shall get out of the exhibition the best possible value for our expenditure. It is the intention of the Government, and those associated with it, to present the British building at the end of the exhibition to the Brazilian Government as a permanent memorial, which, I think, is very right and proper action to be taken.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the speech to which we have just listened, it seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary has missed the main point of this Supplementary Estimate. He says the Vote is but a little one, only £10, because of anticipated savings of £4,990. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the savings in his Department should have been far more considerable than £4,990—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: They are.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Anyone who has followed the Brazilian exchange during the last year must realise that the enormous fall in that exchange has increased the value of English money in that country, has increased the value of the subvention that we are making to this Brazilian Exposition; therefore, there ought to have been no Supplementary Estimate whatsoever, but big savings on this Vote, due to that increased purchasing power. But the point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is of much greater importance than that. The real question is: Why are we paying the money of the British taxpayer for this Exposition in Rio de Janeiro? The hon. Gentleman opposite has given away the key of the position. He has pointed out that there is a committee representing Brazilian interests, presided over by a member of the Rothschild family. Everyone knows that the Rothschild family and Brazilian interests are one. They have been responsible for floating most of the loans to that country. They are par excellence the British house most interested in Brazilian development.
Under these circumstances, why should the British taxpayer go to their assistance in order to advertise, at our expense, in Brazil? We all know these big exhibitions are really gigantic advertisements. It is perfectly obvious that firms send exhibits to these exhibitions in order to increase the sale of their goods, and not
merely to amuse the people who go through the turnstiles. The firms are quite ready to spend money, and so long as individual initiative and enterprise endures, every private firm that wants to extend its business will make full use of every exhibition, and good trade is likely to be done with a reasonable expenditure.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Why not?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree with the hon. Member, why not? But we ought not to ask the taxpayer to pay what the firms ought to pay themselves. If this is good business, let the business people pay. If it is not good business, do not come down upon the British taxpayer and ask him to pay. With the Brazilian exchange as it is at the present time it is almost impossible to sell our goods in Brazil at the present rate of exchange. But the main principle is this: We do dislike the British taxpayer being made to pay for what ought to be the overhead charges of the business people who are advertising in that exhibition.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not take any exception to this Vote in which money is to be spent to erect a pavilion at the Brazilian Centenary Exhibition. We are likely to spend a good deal of money at that Exhibition, and in respect to this Vote the general body of taxpayers will benefit, for it will give a lift to our export trade. There is, however, another side to this question which I should like to mention.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the British taxpayer?

Mr. SAMUEL: By the expenditure of the money, the general body of the nation will undoubtedly benefit in the extra trade brought into the country which will filter through from the factory to the railways, through various subsidiary British manufacturers, shipowners, insurance brokers and the like.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then if that be so, why did the hon. Gentleman oppose the grant in aid of the Russian Famine, which will do precisely the same thing?

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to say that I oppose the grant. I am not responsible for what others do. I am only too glad to seize this opportunity of giving the
manufacturer and the workman something which they need. I am very glad to see the chance of extending our own overseas trade, but, as I said, there is another side of this Vote, and I have a word to say about it, more especially as I see my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs present, sitting alongside the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Department. What is the good of increasing our trade to the South American neighbouring countries—and our trade can only be increased there by exporting our capital in the form of manufactured goods—and the more capital we put into South America the better it is for this country, because it goes out in the form of manufactured goods—and this exhibition may help us—what is the good, I say, when, after we have sent out our money, these countries maltreat our capital? I put that point, to the two hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, representing the Government. I do not blame either of them particularly; I am partly referring to exhibitions in the past, which increased our trade to South America. I want to draw attention to the fact that much of the Argentine railway capital is held in this country. It went out of this country—

The CHAIRMAN: I have some doubt whether I should allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about Brazil, but I have no doubt about it that he cannot talk about the Argentine.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will take the general principle. If we are to let money go out of this country in the form of manufactured goods overseas as the result of an exhibition assisted as this is through a Department of the Board of Trade, surely the Department ought to see to it that the results of our enterprise are not jeopardised, and that if anything unfair happens, say, to goods going into South America through Rio de Janeiro, our grievance should receive immediate attention so that our efforts shall not be brought to nought and our capital wasted by maltreatment of our investment of capital in South American trade. I should not be in order in giving an example of what I mean, but I think on this Vote I should be in order, at all events I trust you will allow me to put my view of the matter on this Vote, and that is, that the Depart-
ment which asks for this money should make up its mind whether it or the Foreign Office is going to look after our interests in these South American matters. I think in the past the Foreign Office has signally failed, if I may say so, in looking after our interests in South America, and now is the opportunity for the Department which is applying for this Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may argue that we will not vote for this sum of money unless he receives an assurance from the Foreign Office for which he asks, but unfortunately it would not be in order for the Foreign Office to give such assurance at present.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then what about the control of the Overseas Department?

Lord R. CECIL: On a point of Order. Is it not right to say that the Department of Overseas Trade is under the Foreign Office?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, and it is open to the hon. Member to put his point. But I am afraid it would be an undue extension of this Supplementary Vote for the representative of the Foreign Office to make a statement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be in order for the hon. Member to point out that it is not desirable to vote this further sum of money for Brazil while the Brazilian Government treats our railways in the way they do?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think so. I think that it would be in order. But I do not think it would be in order to allow the Debate to extend to what possible action the Foreign Office might take in the matter. The limitations of the Supplementary Estimate are very strict.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I will, of course, follow your ruling, Mr. Hope, and I will not deal with the Foreign Office. I did not want to commence with the Overseas Department right off, because it seemed to me this was the business of the Foreign Office, but as the Foreign Office cannot officially reply to my observations, I will attach the blame to the Overseas Department, and challenge them to give me an answer, and I trust that before I vote for this Resolution I shall be given an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Department of Overseas Trade will
look after the interests of British capital in South America in the future better than that task has been performed in the past.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: If in matters such as these the Government are willing to spend money; if they enter into various schemes, whether it be putting up a pavilion at an exhibition in Brazil or something else, then I think they ought to receive a certain amount of warning in the matter. I will admit that I look with some suspicion at any Vote that comes up in the name of the Department of Overseas Trade. The Geddes Committee told us that this Department should be entirely wiped out, and what remains of it should be transferred to the Board of Trade itself. That being so, and in view of the scathing comments contained in the Report, we must consider the Votes that come before us from the Department with perhaps more earnestness than we would in the ordinary course. We have been told to-night that there is a committee in the City which has organised a fund to provide, not the whole of the money, but a certain proportion for the pavilion at the exhibition in Brazil. I really do not see if that committee was possible, and if they found it was possible to do so much, why the whole of the money could not have been provided for the purpose. It would have been spent, I have no doubt, more economically. There would not have been so much starch involved. I am perfectly certain that we should not have wanted this enormous sum of money in order to put a pavilion up and to carry out the purpose of the Vote, which is to help our trade in Brazil. The fact that that Committee exists, is so well known, and has such wealthy backing leads me to think that it would have found it worth while to put up this pavilion whether the Government gave help or no. But knowing no doubt that the Government did not make much difficulty about providing money for such exhibitions they no doubt pressed the Government to provide money, and the Government gave way. I do not know whether it would be advisable to move a reduction, but I do think a, protest is needed on this occasion that these moneys are too easily given by the Government. Where possible, private firms should pro-
vide money to advertise their own goods and the Government should not interfere in the matter.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I agree with much that has fallen from the hon. Member who preceded me. It seems to me very doubtful whether at a moment like this we should be spending money in this way. Let us understand exactly what the public case for this expenditure is. We are to give money which will directly inure to the benefit of those who have got trade interests in Brazil. That is the object, the advertisement of British trade in Brazil. Indirectly it will inure to the benefit of British trade generally. As the case is made out it will benefit the financial interests in Brazil directly, and inasmuch as all trade is one the advantage will come back to the traders and the work-people in this country. That is the case for this expenditure. In other words, this is to be a grant-in-aid of trade interests in Brazil which will inure for the benefit primarily of very rich people and secondarily for the benefit of the workpeople in this country. No objection is raised by any supporters of the Government to this proposal. If we are going to carry that through and accept it as a doctrine, which we ought to act upon in all cases, I should be very much tempted to support the Government, and I will tell him why. If it is right to make this, kind of grant, it is clear it must be more right to make it if the primary beneficiaries are not to be rich people, but poor people. Yet when I have suggested in this House on one or two occasions that in the case of a greatly distressed country such as Russia, we ought to make grants which would ultimately inure for the benefit of the poor people of this country, my proposal was greeted with shouts and howls of derision from the benches opposite. I think that is a very lamentable state of things, and I should indeed deeply regret if the British Parliament were to say they saw no objection to making this grant, which is going to be a benefit to rich people, when they have treated so far with such hostility a grant which is primarily intended to save starving people from starvation. If we are to be told that this is part of a general policy by which money is to be spent in foreign countries in assisting British trade, I would be disposed to support it, but if it is to be said we are to spend £35,000
in assisting well-known financial and trading interests in this country and at the same time refuse to do anything for the Russian peasant then I should be strongly inclined to vote against it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
Any Member representing a Lancashire Division will naturally be interested in a Vote of this kind. The wording of the final paragraph at the foot of page 8 is very subtle—
The total expenditure by His Majesty's Government in connection with the Rio Janeiro Exhibition will not exceed £35,000, of which it is anticipated that £5,000 will be required during the current financial year,
As an amateur in this House, I would like to know whether, in passing this Vote, we are simply passing £5,000 or the whole £35,000.

Lord R. CECIL: The whole £35,000.

Mr. DAVIES: Then I would like to know what proportion does this £35,000 bear to any sum given by any other country. I think that is a fair question. The representative of the Government this evening seemed to minimise the amount of this sum, but it is rather a large sum to spend on a venture of this kind. I want to combat, if I may, what has been stated by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on my left that it follows of necessity if we increase our trade with Brazil through this exhibition that benefit will accrue to the workpeople of this country. That does not follow. Our people will probably find more work by means of extending our trade through an exhibition of this kind. But that does not of necessity increase their income.

Mr A. M. SAMUEL: It will increase their opportunity of work.

Mr. DAVIES: But it does not follow their income will be increased as a consequence. The Committee ought to have a little more information on another point. It is stated at the foot of the page that
Additional sums are being raised by private subscription.
We ought to know something as to the amount subscribed by private individuals in this connection. The Lancashire
people do an immense amount of trade with South American States, but I think Lancashire people in the main do their trade on their own account. They advertise their business and have agents in Brazil to do business for them, and I am somewhat surprised that the Government, the Government of economy, the Government of the Geddes Report, is coming forward and asking this Committee for £35,000 to spend on what appears to me to be a very foolish venture indeed. I would like to ask before I sit down if the representative of the Government will tell us in connection with heading G, "Exhibitions and Fairs (including purchase of samples)," whether, in making purchases of this kind, the Government will distinguish between goods produced in one county like Lancashire and those produced in another, say in the South of England. That may appear a paltry point to bring before the Committee but I am anxious that if this Vote is given Lancashire trade shall have fair play. I would also like to know whether any sums are being granted by the Colonies towards this exhibition I hope we shall go to a division against this sum.

Mr. HASLAM: I certainly find myself unable to follow or understand the arguments of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord it Cecil) and the hon. Member who has just sat down, that if you hold this exhibition it will he for the emolument and enrichment of already rich people. I thought the main object of an exhibition was to encourage industry and find employment. Employment is badly wanted just now, and I think the Government are fully justified in doing everything they can to stimulate trade. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has any information as to what sums have been voted for this exhibition by foreign countries. If he has such information it would be interesting to know why if they think it is wise to vote sums of money for such an exhibition we should take a different view. I do not know whether such sums have been voted, but I gather that is the case. I believe these exhibitions in foreign countries showing our goods are of very great value and do a great deal towards stimulating our trade and finding employment for the great masses of the people who are at the present time so sorely in need of work.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. KILEY: This happens to be one of the very few occasions on which I find myself able to support the Overseas Trade Department. The Overseas Trade Department have entered into the exhibition business and run exhibitions of their own, and owing to the special facilities which they enjoy they are able to run other exhibition holders out of the market, and usually succeed in transferring trade from one set of traders to another. But a case of this kind, when the object is to advertise British industry and trade in Brazil, is one that is worthy of the support of this Committee. I would like to clear up one matter on which considerable doubt has arisen, and that is that the British trader who desires to exhibit at this exhibition does so at his own cost. He engages a space and pays his own expenses. Therefore, as far as individual traders are concerned, there is no question of the Government doing anything for them individually. But the Government themselves are taking a part. They have what is known as a pavilion, and they are taking a very active interest. This has been done not only at this exhibition but at all great International Exhibitions, and not alone is Great Britain taking part, but all the principal countries in the world are doing likewise. Therefore, it would be as well for the Committee to have that information before them. There is one point on which the Parliamentary Secretary might give information, and that is on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. The figure specified in the Vote is £35,000. I understand that outside of this there is a sum of £45,000 collected in the City, which makes a total of £80,000 to be spent on this pavilion and general work. If that is so, £80,000 is a very large sum of money. One realises that in Brazil expenses are very much higher than in this country, and therefore more money requires to be provided. But on the other hand there is a depreciation of their exchange, and that might enable some reduction of this very large sum of £80,000 to be effected. If so, that would do something perhaps to modify the objections of some of the hon. Members who have spoken. If, however, that be not possible, I think this is one of the few occasions on which the Com-
mittee would be well advised in supporting the Government in the action which they have taken.

Mr. J. WALLACE: There is an item, "Purchase of Samples." I want to know what it means. I should have thought there would have been no purchasing of samples, but that anyone exhibiting would be only too glad to supply samples.

Sir G. COLLINS: Several questions have been asked of the Minister on this Vote and we hope a reply will be forth coming before the Division is called. In the earlier part of his speech the Minister made great play with the fact that his Department were economising and had reduced their expenditure. May I remind him that a different view was taken on that subject by the Geddes Report in which I find these words:
Their activities overseas are being curtailed to a very small—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can bring that in on this Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Minister advanced this definite argument in favour of the House of Commons voting this money this evening, that he, through his Department, had economised in other directions and therefore the taxpayer would not have any further burden placed on his shoulders by this Supplementary Estimate. I think I shall be in Order, without going into details, in pointing out to the Committee that this Department has been judged and found wanting by the Geddes Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: That is quite out of Order. The Minister simply said there was money in hand. Whether it might be more is another question. The right hon. Gentleman can ask how the money came to be in hand, but he cannot argue against the whole policy of the Department.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Minister this evening invites the Committee to grant a sum of £5,000 towards a sum of £35,000 which will be ultimately required, and I suggest to the Committee that in deciding whether this new Vote should be passed by the House they are entitled to judge by the records of the Department in the past, and if it can be shown—

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what is not in order. The discussion must be confined to the Estimate.

Sir G. COLLINS: Then I will turn to the Supplementary Estimate itself and argue whether this expenditure is justifiable or not. In the original Estimate large sums of money were voted by this House for different exhibitions in different parts of the country and overseas. This evening the Minister invites the House of Commons to grant a further large sum of money for a similar purpose in another country. My right hon. Friend suggested that the industries which might benefit or expect to benefit by the institution of this exhibiiton and the preparation of the British pavilion in Rio in 1922 should pay for the cost of this pavilion. I think that is a thoroughly sound proposition. It is not as if this House had been negligent or cheeseparing in granting large sums of money to the Ministry. They have been generous in the Estimates for the present year for that purpose, and I think we should now call a halt to the activities of this Department. I have been ruled out of Order, and have no desire to infringe the ruling of the Chair on that point, but I do suggest that the test whether the policy of the Department is a wise one is to be found in the Geddes Report, in which the Department has been judged and found wanting.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Several of the speakers are somewhat under a mis-conception as to the nature of this exhibition. It is not simply a trade exhibition. It is a great centenary exhibition promoted by the Republic of Brazil, and I think it would be a very serious slight if, this country having received an invitation to take part in it, the Government declined to do so. The Government have sought to exercise economy in this matter. It considered very carefully whether it was possible to raise the money entirely from private sources, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself met representatives in the City to discuss that point. But it became perfectly clear that the whole of the money could not be raised in that way. I have been asked how much has been raised by the subscription in the City. I think it amounts to about £26,000. My hon. and gallant Friend quite misunderstood the position in
savings. They will not be savings made out of the Brazilian Exchange. My statement was that savings had already been made in the Department which would be sufficient to cover both the immediate grants and the future grant which the House will be asked to give.

Lord R. CECIL: Am I right in supposing that if these savings were not contributed to this purpose they would go in reduction of Debt?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, of course, the Noble Lord is right in that. I was asked also whether the other countries which are participating in the exhibition have voted money in the same way and whether our Vote is singularly out of proportion to their contributions. The Committee will see that the Vote really authorises the Government to spend £35,000. The United States of America, to which special reference has been made, has voted 1,000,000 dollars for this purpose. The French Government have, I understand, voted 5,000,000 francs, and therefore I do not think that the expenditure by this Government of £35,000 is unreasonable, in view of the expenditure by the United States, who, after all, are keen trade rivals of ours in Brazil. One other question was raised, and that is as to the assistance given by individual traders. My hon. Friend was correct in saying that traders who wished to exhibit their own goods will, of course, pay their rental at the exhibition and their own expenses in the usual way. In regard to the assessment of the rent, the committee which is managing this will try, of course, to secure the most favourable terms. I observe that an objection was raised by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth). I remember reading an article in the "Times" newspaper not very long ago in regard to this very centenary exhibition in which it was pointed out how very important it was that the British Government should take part in it.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: That is hardly relevant. I am not in any way responsible for that article.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Even if the hon. Member was not responsible, I am sure he will agree that it is a very reasonable authority to which to appeal. I do feel there can be [...] course open to the
Government except to take part in this centenary celebration and I suggest it is being done in the most economical way,

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Grants in respect of Compensation for suffering and damage by Enemy Action.

Mr. H. YOUNG: I ask the Committee to Vote this sum of £100,000 to be paid as compensation for damage by enemy action. The Committee will observe there is an explanation at the foot of the Estimate, which is perhaps rather fuller that usual, and puts the Committee to a greater extent than ordinarily in possession of the nature of the Vote. I may however say one or two words in explanation of it, and I welcome the opportunity because this is a matter which it is desirable to bring to the attention of those who have suffered misfortune through no fault of their own. There is some lack of information, I find, about this matter amongst those who are entitled to take advantage of this help, and therefore an opportunity for further knowledge upon the subject is perhaps not unuseful. It will be within the memory of the Committee that the Lord Privy Seal announced to the House on 4th May of last year that the Government proposed to set aside the sum of £5,000,000 out of the first reparations received by the United Kingdom as a fund from which payments could be made to individuals in respect of damage and suffering from enemy action. It will also be within the memory of the Committee that the grants were to be made, as it was then announced, on the recommendation of a special commission. Following that announcement as to the policy of the Government, a special Commission was set up in August last consisting of Lord Sumner, whose judicial services are well known, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. E. Horne) and the President of the Surveyors' Institution whose services the Government were fortunate to secure in
this capacity. That Commission was set up in order to deal with the claims that might be submitted in advance of the time at which there would be money for the payment of the claims. As the Committee will have observed, the claims are to be paid out of the first £5,000,000 of reparations free for that purpose after meeting the cost of the Army on the Rhine. At the time when the Commission was set up, no such funds were available, but it was thought right to get the work in hand, because there was a great deal of work to do.
Let me say a word or two about the general manner in which this Commission is conducting its proceedings. It is, I think, a very businesslike scheme, and the only way in which they can conduct it. Doubtful questions are decided by the Commission on leading cases which are submitted to the Commission, and the claims are assessed by the Reparation Claims Department in accordance with the decisions given on the leading cases by the Commission. When all the claims have been decided in this manner, and the whole sphere of compensation has been decided, the Commission will make recommendations as to the awards to be paid within the limit of £5,000,000 available. That was the state of affairs until the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, and I may add that it has now been decided to make these payments without waiting for receipts from Germany, more especially in view of the fact that the Government itself is now pursuing a policy of what I may call a limited or partial moratorium. Apart from controversial matters which the Committee may find ready to its hand, I think that, as regards the actual case of those unfortunate people who suffered injury during the War of the kind for which they will be able to claim compensation under this scheme, there can be no doubt that, having once made this arrangement, we ought now to he prepared to meet and pay compensation without further delay, and that is what will be, done. The claims for compensation will now be thus adjudged, met and paid, and the claim will still stand as a claim against the first £5,000,000 of Reparation money receivable, after meeting the cost of the Army of Occupation. The Committee may ask, Why have a Supplementary Estimate? It is for this reason, and I
am sure the Committee will agree that it is right. The Commission has been dealing first with cases of exceptional hardship and urgency—cases which it would be in accordance with all the feelings of humanity to settle at the earliest possible time. The Commission have, by hard work and constant application, been able so to advance their work as to see their way to dealing with some of these exceptional hard cases in the course of this financial year, to the extent of the £100,000 for which we are now asking, and I believe there will be no disagreement that, since the claims are ready, payment should be made at the earliest possible moment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I believe that this is a new service. At any rate, I cannot find it in the main Estimates. Before making a comment which the hon. Gentleman will have anticipated, and which, I hope, will be repeated by others in more eloquent language than mine, I wish to ask the Government if they are going to implement one of the most solemn pledges given by the Prime Minister, namely, that given by him to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. H. Wilson) and a deputation representing the British merchant service, that the very first payments from Germany should go to the widows and orphans who suffered by the German submarine action, and to those men who survived and who suffered in mind and body from the hardships to which they were exposed. The Prime Minister promised that most faithfully. There was a great deal of feeling in the country behind the merchant seamen, and they came up with all their heavy guns. The Prime Minister got rid of them by making this solemn promise, and, in answer to questions by myself and other hon. Members, repeated again and again in the House of Commons, he admitted the promise, but always said that, it would be carried out to-morrow or the day after. Now £100,000 is being voted, and credits are to be asked for amounting altogether to £5,000,000, if required; and I wish to ask seriously whether this promise is at last going to be implemented. I and other Members for shipping ports and for other parts of the country—because these men came from all parts of the country—have repeatedly written to and interviewed the President of the Board of
Trade, bringing to his notice these very hard cases of merchant seamen who, through exposure in open boats and similar hardships, have suffered, or of their widows and orphans who are in dire penury. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) has referred to pensioners as parasites, but I hope that even he would not look upon these unfortunate people as being in that category. They have been put off with fair words and promises, which have not been kept up to date, and I wish to ask now whether their claims are to be given priority, as was solemnly undertaken by the Prime Minister. This is a very interesting Vote, and I am sorry that it has come on at this hour, when nearly everyone is away. It is the first real attempt to make good the damage due to the War. The damage done in the War, under the terms on which the German armies were granted an Armistice, was to be made good by the enemy, and that was the only reparation that we were legally and morally entitled to claim. All the high-[...]alutin nonsense about the Germans paying the cost of the War, about their paying the War Debt, and reducing taxation—which I know the hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury feels as keenly as anyone else—was not only economically impossible, but immoral.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. Are we in order in discussing the terms of the Peace Treaty on this Vote?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. I submit that this is a new service, and this is the first chance we have of discussing the matter, in terms of £ s. d., of the people who are affected.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I think it is in order for hon. Members to point out, if they desire to do so, that money for this purpose was anticipated to be paid by Germany under the Versailles Treaty, but we are only entitled now to discuss it in so far as it concerns this amount, and we cannot cover the whole ground. In so far as it concerns the £100,000, that will be quite in order, but I must ask hon. Members not to go beyond that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was going on to point out that if we had not held out these extravagant hopes and tried to get impossible sums out of
Germany we should have got substantial sums before this which these unfortunate people would have received, and it would have been unnecessary to ask the Committee for this sum of money. I do not want to go beyond that. It is not necessary. If we had stuck to the sensible soldiers' terms of the Armistice, if we had not dishonoured ourselves for the sake of catching votes, this Vote would have been unnecessary, and the over-burdened British taxpayer would not have this fresh straw piled on his poor camel-like back.
The next point I wish to make is this. In the apologia, on page 48, the sums of money being paid by Germany are in-sufficient to pay for the Army of Occupation. This is the year 1922. That is why we are having to put our hands in our pockets to find this money for these very necessitous cases described by the Secretary to the Treasury. That is what some of us have pointed out for some years. We are getting into the fourth year of this insanity. The question of an Army of Occupation for 15 years was not known at the time of the election. [Interruption.] What nonsensical remarks the hon. Member makes about me not encouraging the Germans to pay. I want them to pay for illegitimate damage. I have always made that clear, but the wrong way to get it is to ruin them and drive them to despair and make it impossible for them to pay impossible sums of money; and one of the ways that is making it impossible to get the money, out of Germany—and no one feels the need of the money for these unfortunate merchant seamen more than I do—the ridiculous way in which we are going about it is this. We are not only having this very costly Army of Occupation, but we have all sorts of Commissions—Reparation Commissions and Disarmament Commissions on the most lavish scale, motor cars, typists, secretaries, valets, and servants—and they occupy the Kaiserhof Hotel, one of the largest in Berlin. All this is supposed to be paid by the German Government, with the mark round about 900 to the £1. The consequence is that the Secretary to the Disarmament Commission gets more money than half the German Cabinet put together. If it were not for these bloated Commissions we should be getting hard cash from Germany and should not have
to be finding this £100,000. The third point is the Army of Occupation altogether. The whole thing is ridiculous. It is extremely bad for the troops.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go into the question of the Army of Occupation on this Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This question of the Army of Occupation absorbing money is mentioned in the Government apologia.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have read the note on page 48. It does not justify a discussion on the Army of Occupation. It says:
Although the receipts are at present insufficient to cover the prior charge in respect of the British Army of Occupation it has been decided to ask Parliament to make available the full sum of £5,000,000.
That does not justify a general discussion on the Army of Occupation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is endeavouring to discuss the £5,000,000 on this Supplementary Vote for £100,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to dispute your ruling.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: You had better not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think we need assistance from that quarter. At any rate I hope this Vote will bring home to the people how much they have so far got out of Germany. Here we are at our wits end for money, with an empty Treasury and every possibility of a deficit, and here we are in the fourth year after the Armistice having to put our hands in our pockets to the tune of £100,000 for the most urgent and necessitous cases of suffering as the result of enemy action. I represent a constituency which suffered very severely in the War. Owing to our position on the East Coast and the nice guiding mark the Humber made we were bombed more than any other community in these islands. Thanet may have been involved more often but we were bombed by Zeppelins from a height of a few hundred feet. They were quite immune, and we suffered very severely. In addition to that we had a tremendous number of men in the merchant service and the fishing fleets and they suffered, and if there is any community that needs this money it is the
constituency I represent. I am certainly not going to vote against this £100,000. We have been waiting for compensation. There have been advances made, of course, and there are more due, from other funds, but I hope the people in my constituency and in other counties will see in this Vote of £100,000, which is only a fiftieth of what we have voted altogether, a sign of the utter failure of the Government's policy of getting money out of the enemy. We have done every possible thing we could not to get money out of the enemy. I should not be in order in going into details more than I have done, but although I am not going to vote against this money—it is very difficult for any of us to do it—I am going to take the earliest possible opportunity of voting against the Government's foreign policy and one of my reasons will be this appalling state of affairs that this Vote discloses.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I think there were, in the earlier part of the speech we have just heard, one sentence or two which remotely came in contact with the Vote, and it was when the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that this £100,000 was not going to be devoted to the relief of those who lost their all in the Merchant Service by submarine action. I should like the Secretary to the Treasury to let us know at once definitely whether that is the case or not, or whether those cases are not regarded as being amongst the very most urgent which are going to be dealt with first.

Mr. YOUNG: I shall be most glad of the opportunity to answer that question at once. It was put both by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who reminded me of the special urgency of the claims of the merchant seamen, which neither he nor I are likely to forget. The Royal Commission are giving early consideration to the claims of the merchant seamen.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Of course, the reply the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given is the reply which every Member of the Committee would have anticipated. It is perfectly obvious that of all these cases the most urgent is that of the merchant seamen. If the Committee will call to their minds what the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) said beside that, they will agree with me that there is nothing whatsoever in the Vote to criticise.

Sir G. COLLINS: I should like to ask a few questions in regard to the administration of this Fund. There are thousands of people throughout the country who have been anxiously awaiting compensation from the Government because of the loss of effects through enemy action. On a recent visit to the North I was made painfully aware of that fact, and my attention was drawn by constituents and others to the fact that the Government were about to invite Parliament to vote £5,000,000 for this purpose. Will the Financial Secretary inform the Committee whether claims for losses incurred in 1915 will receive priority over losses incurred in 1916–17–18? Can we have some information as to the principles that are guiding the very able Commission which has been appointed to allocate the £5,000,000 to the many necessitous cases? I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give the Committee information on that point. No hon. Member on this side desires to raise the slightest objection to this Vote, but I would point out that a week or two ago in this House, while the Prime Minister was present, I reminded him that he had promised to search the pockets of the German people, and that little money had been forthcoming from that quarter, but that he had searched more successfully than any Government in any country the pockets of the British taxpayer. The presentation of this Estimate is a complete and full justification for the statement I made on that occasion, which seemed to cause the Prime Minister some annoyance, for it is quite clearly shown that reparations have not been received from the Government and that the British taxpayer is being taxed, and properly taxed, to find money for the losses incurred by our fellow-citizens through enemy action during the War.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: This action of the Government in allocating £100,000 to the relief of those who suffered from enemy action is very belated. Of all the atrocities which the Germans committed none seemed to stir the world more than the sinking of the "Lusitania." The
sinking of the "Lusitania" took place nearly seven years ago, yet the widows who lost their husbands in that atrocity have not received any compensation. It may be a consolation to a widow to know that eventually when the Germans pay their reparation she will receive compensation, but it does not enable her to live during the seven or eight intervening years while the Government are thinking about it. The other nations whose nationals suffered in that disaster have already received compensation. I believe the American, Belgian and Italian claims have been paid, although I speak subject to correction. Our Government seems to have done nothing. They have been deaf to the complaints that have reached them. I know of one case of a widow, whose claim has reached my hon. Friend, who lost her husband in that disaster, and whose means of livelihood were practically cut off, and she has been for seven years existing on the kindness of her friends, while the British Government has taken no notice whatever of her claim. I urge the Government to provide at once a sufficient sum of money which will enable them, at least, to settle the claims of those people who have no other means of livelihood, and who are in distress because of the losses which they suffered. It is surely justifiable to say that the well-to-do people who lost their effects in the "Lusitania, but who still have large sums of money left on which to live, should wait for the liquidation of their claims until the claims of those who are in need have been met. I beg the Government to devote the first of this money to compensate not only the "Lusitania," widows but other widows in the country who are in dire distress.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: The persons for whom this money and the money provided in the subsequent Votes is intended have been waiting for practically three years. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Vote now, although it is very late. I am extremely sorry that they have not got the money from Germany. Having failed to get the money from Germany, they are providing the money themselves, which is only right, considering the cause; but it is a terrible admission that after almost three years of wait-
ing they have not even got enough from the Germans to cover the cost of the Army of Occupation, and have nothing left with which to meet the legitimate claims of the victims of German action in the War, with the result that they have to provide the money out of their own funds. I hope there will be no delay in allocating the money to the most necessitous cases. Of those cases and those places which were most hurt during the War I may claim that the constituency which I have the honour to represent was the most bombed area in the country. It is a small jutting-out piece of land, and during the War it was termed really a war area. The fortifications for London in regard to air raids were established at Canterbury, which is just behind the piece of land known as the Isle of Thanet. That piece of land was left absolutely undefended against air raids, and it suffered extremely heavily, numberless bombs being dropped by enemy aircraft on the way to and from London. My constituents did not complain, although they were left without any sort of defence. I hope the Financial Secretary will recognise this fact, and that in allocating the money he will remember—

Mr. YOUNG: I want to make it perfectly clear that neither the Treasury nor I nor any other Minister have anything to do with the allocating of this money. It is being allocated by a Judicial Commission.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Though that is the case, we are in order in submitting our case to the Government. In appointing this tribunal the Government have surrendered their responsibility which they should have taken on their own shoulder. Whenever I ask about the money which we should receive from Germany I am always referred to this Reparations Commission, as if the Government had no responsibility at all. If the responsibility is given to some other body over which this House has no control, we are powerless to do anything in this matter. There is another point. This deals with the necessitous cases. Though we have not yet got the money from Germany, when that happens—which could happen now if the Government would take the thing in hand, because it is easy for the Government to make Germany pay, if not in money, in goods—I would ask the Government to
consider the claim of the area which I represent. I regard it as a War area, and it was so regarded in official documents. It became a no-man's land. People fled from the area, and it was reduced to very great poverty, and numbers of people, who are no longer my constituents, lost everything. Some of these people became bankrupt, as they had to mortgage their property owing to the failure of trade of any sort in the island. I know that in other parts of the country people had to leave their business and go to the front, but they left, perhaps, their families in charge and they did expect that their businesses would have a chance of existing. But in the case of which I am speaking all business ceased to exist and people had to mortgage their property to the last penny it could raise, and when the money is received from Germany a portion should be put aside for those persons in this part of the country who lost all they had owing to the Government not taking proper precautions to defend that small but important piece of the country. The Financial Secretary may say that he is not responsible, but all I can do is to put the case before him. He is the representative of the Government. I have no power to put the case before the Reparations Commission, and I am sure that any power, which the hon. Gentleman has will he exercised with the Government to do what I ask.

Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give some reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins).

Mr. YOUNG: The question was as regards a preference being given in the matter of time, and that some direction should be issued on this point. No directions of any sort can issue from the Treasury or any Minister to this impartial Tribunal. We should not be in a position to say exactly what influences there might be in judging cases of hardship or prejudice. I think that we should be ill-advised to lay down too definite rules in the matter but, in considering preference as to hardship, I have no doubt that due weight will be given to all the considerations which have been submitted by the Members whom I have mentioned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates, may be effected therein."

Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of twenty-four Members."

Committee accordingly nominated of Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Barnes, Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay, Captain Craig, Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. Charles Edwards, Major Entwistle, Sir Edgar Jones, Mr. Morgan Jones, Major Christopher Lowther, Mr. Lyle-Samuel, Mr. Marriott, Captain Martin, Mr. Mills, Captain Moreing, Major William Murray, Sir Philip Pilditch, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Mr. Rose, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, Colonel Sir Robert Williams, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Hilton Young.

Ordered, "That Seven be the quorum of the Committee."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and
that Four be the quorum of any of the Sub-committees."

Ordered, "That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee, or by any of the Sub-committees, to the House."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

PAWNBROKERS BILL.

Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Nine o'Clock.